Mohd. Arif vs State of H.P. and others

Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J.—The petitioner approached the Tribunal mainly with the following prayers:

(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant pension of deceased mother of the applicant to the applicant and other legal heirs of deceased.

(ii) That the respondents may kindly be restrained to give monthly pension of the deceased exclusively to respondent No. 3 and the pension already given to respondent No. 3 may kindly be recovered from him as the same has been given in an illegal and arbitrary manner.

As the Tribunal was abolished, the matter was transferred to this Court and hence the present writ petition.

The petitioner is the eldest son of the deceased mother Smt. Rafikan Quareshi. The third respondent is her husband and the father of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, since he has been taking care of the other children of the deceased, the father should not be the beneficiary of the family pension. But it is stated in the reply by respondent No. 3 as follows:

That the factual averments made in the Original Application are all incorrect and denied as such. It is denied that the deceased mother of the applicant Smt. Rafikan had deserted her husband and that her husband was living separately alongwith two out of total four children. In fact the averments made in the Original Application are a reflection of how low, can the elder son stoop for getting the financial benefits of his deceased mother.

It is submitted that deceased Smt. Rafikan was married to respondent No. 3 Sh. Omar Daraj and was happily living with him alongwith her four children till she died. But for the applicant the other three children are still living with their father-respondent No. 3. The names of these children are:-

Smt. Mobina now married and living at Yamunanagar

Sh. Kamil living with his father at Poanta Sahib

Ms. Rubina living with her father at Poanta Sahib

It is absolutely incorrect to suggest that respondent No. 3-father of the children has been living at Yamunanagaar alongwith the children. Respondent No. 3 is living at Poanta Sahib alongwith his two children namely Kamil and Rubina. Kamil is unemployed and Rubina is physically handicapped. It is also wrong to suggest that Rubina is living with her brother-Arif the applicant. Applicant has tried to project himself as the big brother coming in aid for his physical handicapped sister Rubina. Yet it is he himself who is the biggest obstacle in the welfare of his sister. It may not be out of place to mention here that the respondent No. 3 alongwith his three children has filed an O.A. 1085/2002 pending for disposal in this Hon''ble Tribunal agitating that all the retiral benefits of the deceased Smt. Rafikan should be apportioned equally between all her legal heirs and not just to Arif alone. Also the applicants of O.A. 1085/2002 have submitted to the concerned authorities alongwith their affidavits that they are ready and willing to forgo any claim on compassionate employment in favour of their handicapped sister-Rubina. It is because of non filing of affidavit by the present applicant w.r.t. no objection regarding Rubina''s employment on compassionate basis that her case is still pending with the authorities for employment on compassionate basis. In case the present applicant is agreeable to the suggestion that service benefits of late Smt. Rafikan should go to her all legal heirs in equal shares then the respondents have no objection to such suggestion. Pension is not to be given to the applicant. Applicant is otherwise gainfully employed at Nahan and not dependant upon deceased Smt. Rafikan. Applicant is separate is mess with the other legal heirs of late Smt. Rafikan and is living with his family at Nahan. Applicant has already received GPF and Link Deposit Insurance of Deceased Rafikan (for adjustment of which O.A. 1085/2002 is pending). Remaining retiral benefits of late Smt. Rafikan namely DCRG, Leave Encashment and Ex gratia etc. are to be distributed equally to her legal heirs with adjustment of amount received by applicant.

During the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal and this Court, we are informed that the petitioner has already withdrawn the provident fund amount to the tune of Rs. 57,725/- and the insurance amount to the tune of Rs. 30,000/-. We are also informed by the learned counsel for the third respondent that presently, except the petitioner and the married daughter, other members of the family are staying with the third respondent and are being taken care of by the third respondent.

In view of the factual position, as referred to above, we do not think that the petitioner is entitled to any further relief. He has already withdrawn the Provident Fund amounts and also the insurance amounts. Now, no member of the family is with him. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any.