A third-party employer appealed against a succession order declaring a married daughter sole legal heir of a deceased employee. Relying on the Pension Regulations' definition of family, the High Court held married daughters are excluded and set aside the order.
Appeal allowed; SOP.No.151/2018 judgment set aside; employer at liberty to act as per law; no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.M.A.(MD)No.30 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 30.01.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
C.M.A.(MD)No.30 of 2022
The Commandant, 105 Bn, CRPF, Mahalingapuram, Vellalore (Post), Coimbatore District, Tamil Nadu – 641 111. ... Appellant Vs. 1.Viji.A 2.Albi.G ... Respondents
PRAYER : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as against the order and decree made in SOP.No.151/2018 dated 21.08.2018 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Kanniyakumari District at Nagercoil.
For Appellant : Mr.K.R.Laxman For Respondent No.1 : No appearance For Respondent No.2 : Mr.S.Jeevagan
1 / 6
C.M.A.(MD)No.30 of 2022
**J U D G M E N T ********************
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the Commandant, CRPF, who is a third party in the SOP, against the order passed in SOP.
2. The facts of the case as stated in the petition filed in Succession Original Petition is that the petitioner in the SOP claims herself to be the sister and to be the sole legal heir of the deceased employee namely Ajish. She has impleaded her father as the respondent. After considering the petition, the same was allowed declaring the petitioner as the legal heir of the deceased employee. The Court has taken the 'No Objection Certificate' issued by the father to nominate his daughter as the legal heir. But the claim of the respondent father is that he was forced to sign the affidavit in which he has given 'no objection'. He claims to be an illiterate and he doesn't know English and the signature was obtained forcibly. Hence, he has preferred several petitions before the authorities seeking to decline the execution of the same. Unfortunately, the father has not come with an appeal before this Court. But the employer has come before this Court.
3. This Court has issued notice to the petitioner / daughter but she remains ex-parte before this Court. The father is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2 / 6
C.M.A.(MD)No.30 of 2022
being represented by an Advocate. The plea of the employer is that
as per Pension Regulation, the 'family' includes the following:
'(6) For the purposes of this rule and Rules 51, 52 and 53, 'family', in relation to a Government servant, means -
(i) wife or wives including judicially separated wife or wives in the case of a male Government servant,
(ii) husband, including judicially separated husband
in the case of a female Government servant,
(iii) sons including stepsons and adopted sons,
(iv) unmarried daughters including stepdaughters and adopted daughters,
(v) widowed daughters including stepdaughters and adopted daughters,
(vi) father – including adoptive parents in the case of individuals whose personal law permits adoption.
(vii) mother - including adoptive parents in the case of individuals whose personal law permits adoption.
(viii) brothers below the age of eighteen years including stepbrothers,
(ix) unmarried sisters and widowed sisters including stepsisters,
(x) married daughters, and
(xi) children of a pre-deceased son.'
4. At sub-clause (vi) father is included and at sub-clause
(ix) unmarried sisters and widowed sisters including stepsisters were included. In this case, the petitioner / daughter is married daughter. She being married she is not entitled to be declared as
3 / 6
C.M.A.(MD)No.30 of 2022
'family' and consequently she is not entitled to any amount from the deceased employee including pension.
5. On perusing the Pension Regulations, only unmarried sisters, widowed sisters including stepsisters are entitled to pension and not married sisters. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner / daughter is a married person and she has declared herself as married and she is wife of Mr.Anto Eugin. Therefore, this point was never canvassed before the Court, because the employer was not impleaded as a party. The Court below has not taken this fact into consideration. Hence, the order passed in Succession Original Petition is on an erroneous ground.
6. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the judgment passed in SOP.No.151/2018 dated 21.08.2018, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Kanniyakumari District at Nagercoil, is set aside. The employer is at liberty to act as per law. There shall be no order as to costs.
30.01.2024
NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No MR
4 / 6
C.M.A.(MD)No.30 of 2022
To
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5 / 6
C.M.A.(MD)No.30 of 2022
S.SRIMATHY, J.
MR
C.M.A.(MD)No.30 of 2022
30.01.2024
6 / 6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a married daughter qualifies as 'family' under the Pension Regulations and is entitled to pension benefits of the deceased employee.
Whether the succession order declaring the petitioner sole legal heir was erroneous for not considering her marital status.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The Commandant, 105 Bn, CRPF, Mahalingapuram, Vellalore (Post), Coimbatore District, Tamil Nadu – 641 111
Viji.A
Albi.G
S.Srimathy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
