Beena Bindu Titus & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors.

Justice K. Haripal, Judicial Member

The applicants are the widow and children respectively of late K.G. Prakash, who passed away on 11.02.2025 while working as Superintendent in Customs under the 3^rd respondent. At the time of death, the 4^th respondent, the mother was alive. It is submitted that there was some matrimonial discord between the applicants on the one hand and K.G. Prakash on the other, for at some point of time, which led to initiation of certain proceedings before the family Court. There was cases as MC No. 123/2006 for the maintenance of the children, OP(DA) No. 160/2006 for restitution of conjugal rights and OP(G&W) No. 350/2009 before the Family Court, Kollam. Later, it has come out that the disputes were amicably settled and Annexure A-1 settlement was reached between the spouses on 16.06.2009. Thereafter, they started residing together. It is submitted that, then the couple jointly purchased a house, by availing loan. The said K.G. Prakash passed away during the period they were living peacefully. During the pendency of the cases before the Family Court, the said K.G. Prakash had given nominations as Annexures A-6(3), A-6(4) and A-6(5) nominating his parents, enabling them to inherit 50% share each in Group Insurance, gratuity and Provident Fund respectively. His siblings, respondents 5 to 7 were named in the nominations intending to pass the rights in the events nominees predecease the subscriber. After settlement of the family dispute, the nominations were not withdrawn nor fresh nominations were given. It is submitted that names of his wife and children were not given in the service records.

After the death of Prakash, the first applicant made a request for getting retiral benefits including GPF, DCRG, CGEGIS (Insurance) and CGEGIS (Savings) amounting to Rs. 29,71,811/-. It is shown that the 7^th respondent, the sister, on behalf of the mother of the deceased, also raised rival claim over the amounts. Ultimately, the question was referred for legal advice to the Deputy Solicitor General, who gave certain advice. On that basis, the claim made by the first applicant was virtually rejected. Aggrieved by the same, now the applicants have approached the Tribunal seeking the following reliefs:-

Incidentally, it is to be pointed out that though mention is made about the institution of OP(Succession) 25/2025 before the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram, an order was passed by the Court only on 21.01.2026, during the pendency of the OA. That order is produced and marked as Annexure A-8. Through Annexure A8, it is pointed out that the applicants are found entitled to get the entire retiral benefits. Now, Annexure A-8 has been set up, as a ground advancing the claim of the applicants. Incidentally, in Annexures A-7 and A-8, there are only three petitioners, who are the applicants. But, in the order, it is stated that succession certificate is ordered to be issued to 'petitioners 1 to 4' which must be typographical error.

Respondents 1 to 3 have filed reply statement sticking to the stand taken in Annexure A-6. They have stated that the deceased had given Annexures A-6(3), A-6(4) and A-R-(5) nominations in favour of the parents, that in the family details, the name of the applicants are conspicuously absent. In the light of the legal advise, they say that Annexure A-6 should sustain.

Party respondents 4 to 7 did not contest. It appears that they did not oppose Annexure A-7 petition also.

Meanwhile, it has come out that family pension has been granted to the 1^st applicant; similarly it is pointed out that an amount of Rs.13,99,650/- has been disbursed to the 1^st applicant towards Earned Leave encashment.

The applicants filed a rejoinder and submitted that in the light of Annexure A-3, legal heirship certificate and Annexure A-4 family membership certificate, they are entitled to get the retiral benefits; the mother has no right over the amount.

We heard Sri Vishnu, the learned Counsel for the applicants and also Sri Sreedutt, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

Admittedly, the parties are Christians governed by the Indian Succession Act. Admittedly, K.G Prakash died intestate on 11.02.2025. Therefore, Sections 32, 33, 36 and 43 of Chapter II of the Indian Succession Act should govern the field. Section 32 provides that 'the property of an intestate devolves upon the wife or husband, or upon those who are of kindred of the deceased, in the order and according to the rules contained in the Chapter. Section 33(a) provides that 'where the intestate has left a widow, and also left any lineal descendants, one-thirds of his property shall belong to his widow, and the remaining two-thirds shall go to his lineal descendants, according to the Rules contained in the Act. In this connection, Sections 36 and 37 regarding distribution of the intestate's property are also relevant. Here, the status of the applicants is not in dispute, so that one-third of the property shall devolve on the first applicant widow and the remaining 2/3^rd shall go to the lineal descendants, the children, who are the applicants 2 and 3. Similarly, Section 43 indicates that the mother will get right over the property of the intestate only if he had no widow or lineal descendants. Even though the mother is also an heir as a kindred, the applicants exclude the right of the mother. In that view of the matter, the claim raised by the sister on behalf of the mother cannot have legal basis.

Provisions in the GPF Rules and Pension Rules are also in tune with the Indian Succession Act. That means, Annexure A-6 cannot sustain.

Now the learned Counsel for the applicants has submitted that during the pendency of the Original Application, the mother has passed away on 16.05.2026. As stated earlier, even if she is alive, since the widow and children have predominant right, she has no right over the property.

As rightly stated in the legal advise, the nominations given by the deceased cannot be used to deny the rights of the applicants. Nominee is only a trustee who cannot appropriate the property himself but can only distribute among the legal heirs, in accordance with law. In the circumstances, even in the absence of any nomination in favour of the applicants, Annexures A-6(3), A-6(4) and A-6(5) cannot be highlighted for denying the claims of the applicants.

In the result, we quash Annexure A-6. Respondents are directed to disburse the amounts to the applicants within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

The OA is allowed as above. No costs.