Jhotwara, Jaipur v. Barakhambha Lane, New Delhi

Sriganganagar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Yadav with Mr. Mahavir Prasad Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Yadav HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA 21/08/2025 Order

1. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to release terminal benefits of her deceased husband relating to CPF, PF and DCRG (death-cum-retirement gratuity) along with interest.

2. It is stated that late husband of the petitioner Shri Naresh Kumar Yadav was recruited on the post of Assistant Grade- II (B) and was a substantive employee of respondent-Corporation. During service, her husband expired on 11.07.1995. Since, then she has been requesting the respondents to release the service benefits and terminal benefits in relation to service rendered by [2025:RJ-JP:32947] (2 of 5) [CW-14341/2009] her late husband but by raising illogical, illegal and irrational objections, till date terminal service benefits of her husband have not been released.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents seriously opposed the writ petition by stating that the petitioner was not residing with Late Shri Naresh Kumar Yadav on account of having some matrimonial dispute and even a divorce petition was filed which was ultimately dismissed. Under these circumstances, mother of Late Shri Naresh Kumar Yadav also submitted application for claiming the terminal benefits relating to services of Late Shri Naresh Kumar Yadav under these circumstances, where terminal claims were there and no nomination was found in the service record of Late Shir Naresh Kumar Yadav, the respondents have not released the benefits in favour of any of the rival claimants and asked both to them to produce copy of succession certificate under the provisions of Indian Succession Act, 1972.

4. I have considered the rival submissions and examined the record.

5. It is not disputed that till the death of late Shri Naresh Kumar Yadav, the petitioner was legally wedded wife of the deceased and neither there was any decree of judicial separation, nor of divorce.

6. As per, Food Corporation of India (Contributory Provident Fund) Regulations, 1967, the family has been defined in the following manner:- “’Family’ means : (i) in the case of a male member, the wife or wives and children of such member and the widow or widows, and children of a pre-deceased son of such member; [2025:RJ-JP:32947] (3 of 5) [CW-14341/2009] Provided that if a member proves that his wife has been judicially separated from him or has ceased under the customary law of the community to which she belongs to be entitled to maintenance she shall henceforth be deemed to be no longer apart of the member’s family in matters to which these regulations relate, unless the member subsequently intimates in writing to the Board that she shall continue to be so regarded. (ii) In the case of a female member, the husband and children of the member, and the widow or widows and children of a pre-deceased son of a member; Provided that if a member by notice in writing to the Board expresses her desire to exclude her husband from her family, the husband shall henceforth be deemed to be no longer a part of the member’s family in matters to which these Regulations relate, the member subsequently cancels such notice in writing.” unless

7. Bare perusal of the aforesaid definition of family would make it abundantly clear that in case of male member the wife, widow and children of pre-deceased of such member have been included in the definition of family. Only in the cases, where wife was judicially separated from the deceased and was entitled to maintenance, she has been excluded from the definition of family.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent is unable to show that as to whether mother of the deceased Government servant is included in the definition of family in the aforesaid Regulations of 1967 or in any other provisions in respondent-Corporation. Under these circumstances, denying the terminal benefits of deceased Shri Naresh Kumar Yadav, who was the employee of respondent- Corporation on a ground which is beyond the Rules and Regulations amounts to clear arbitrariness on the part of the respondent-Corporation. Merely at the whims and fancies, the officer of respondent-Corporation cannot deny or defer benefits by asking widow of a deceased Corporation servant to obtain [2025:RJ-JP:32947] (4 of 5) [CW-14341/2009] succession certificate, when it is not at all required under the Rules.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon one judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Chander Kanta Vs. Monika, where the Punjab and Haryana High Court after relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarbati Devi Vs. Smt. Usha Devi AIR 1984 SC 346 has categorically held that by considering definition of family it is clear that the provisions of Hindu Succession Act shall not apply for the purpose of release of terminal benefits of deceased Government employee.

10. In the light of above, it is clear that the respondents have withheld the terminal benefits after the death of late Shri Naresh Kumar Yadav in quite arbitrary and legally unsustainable manner and the same have not been released for last 30 years. Under these circumstances, the delay in releasing the benefits is solely attributed to the respondents.

11. In the light of aforesaid discussion, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed, the petitioner is entitled for terminal benefits in relation to service rendered by late Shri Naresh Kumar Yadav in respect of CPF, PF, DCRG (death cum retirement gratuity) within a period of two months along with arrears. Since, such benefits have been arbitrarily and whimsically delayed by the respondent-Corporation, hence, the petitioner is also entitled for interest at the rate of 6% per annum till actual realization of aforesaid benefits. In the above facts and circumstances, this Court finds that it is also a fit case to saddle the respondent-Corporation with cost which is assessed as [2025:RJ-JP:32947] (5 of 5) [CW-14341/2009] Rs.50,000/- which shall also be paid to the petitioner in the aforesaid circumstances. DIVYA /16 (ANAND SHARMA),J