Civil Appeal No 653 of 1991
284 From the Judgment and Order dated 11
121989 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh in OA No 694 of 1988
Avadh Behari AK Sharma and Inderjit Singh Mehra for the Appellants
Dr Anand Prakash B Krishna Prasad and SM Ashri for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINGH J
Leave granted
Whether family pension payable under the service rules could be bequeathed by means of a will by the deceased employee during his life time is the question involved in this appeal
Briefly the facts giving rise to this appeal are that Issac Alfred was employed in the Railway Workshop Jagadhri as a Skilled Mechanic Tool Shop he died in harness on 16101984
On his death a dispute arose between Mrs Violet Issac widow of the deceased Railway employee his sons daughters and Elic Alfred brother of the deceased regarding family pension gratuity and other emoluments payable by the Railway Administration
Violet Issac widow of the deceased employee made an application before the competent Railway Authority for the grant of family pension and for payment of gratuity and other dues to her her four sons and one daughter who are appellant Nos 2 to 6
The Railway Authorities did not pay any amount to the appellants as an injunction order had been issued by the Sub Judge 1st Class Jagadhri in Civil Suit No 36585 filed by Elic Alfred brother of the deceased employee restraining the appellants from claiming or receiving any amount which were to the credit of the deceased Railway employee towards CTD Account gratuity family pension and other dues
It appears that the relations between late Issac Alfred and his widow Smt
Violet Issac and the children were not cordial as a result of which he had made nomination in favour of his brother and further he had executed a will dated 991984 in favour of Elic Alfred bequeathing all his properties to him including the family pension gratuity etc
When the appellants raised claim for family pension and other dues before the Railway Authorities Elic Alfred filed Civil Suit No 36585 for the issue of a permanent injunction restraining the appellants from receiving or claiming any monetary benefits from the Railway Administration
In his suit Elic Alfred had 285 pleaded that in view of the will his deceased brother s widow and children were not entitled to any benefit from the Railway Authorities instead he was entitled to the deceased s estate including the right to receive family pension and other dues
The Civil Court issued an injunction order restraining the appellants from receiving any amount from the Railway Authorities as a result of which the Railway Administration did not pay any amount to them
The appellants thereupon made an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh for the issue of a direction for the release of the amounts on account of gratuity group insurance provident fund CTD account and family pension
The appellants pleaded that the will relied upon by Elic Alfred was a forged one and Elic Alfred was not entitled to receive pensionary benefits
On an application made by the appellants the suit pending before the Civil Court was also transferred to the Tribunal s file
The Tribunal by its order dated 11
121989 held that since the dispute related to rival claims based on title arising from relationship in one case and from a will in the other it has no jurisdiction to decide the same
The Tribunal further directed for the transfer of the civil suit to the Civil Court for trial in accordance with law
The appellants have challenged the order of the Tribunal by means of the present appeal
The dispute between the parties relates to gratuity provident fund family pension and other allowances but this Court while issuing notice to the respondents confined the dispute only to family pension
We would therefore deal with the question of family pension only
Family Pension Rules 1964 provide for the sanction of family pension to the survivors of a Railway Employee
Rule 801 provides that family pension shall be granted to the widowwidower and where there is no widowwidower to the minor children of a Railway servant who may have died while in service
Under the Rules son of the deceased is entitled to family pension until he attains the age of 25 years an unmarried daughter is also entitled to family pension till she attains the age of 25 years or gets married which ever is earlier
The Rules do not provide for payment of family pension to brother or any other family member or relation of the deceased Railway employee
The Family Pension Scheme under the Rules is designed to provide relief to the widow and children by way of compensation for the untimely death of the deceased employee
The Rules do not provide for any nomination with regard to family pension instead the Rules designate the persons who are entitled to receive the family pension
Thus no other person except those designated under the Rules are entitled to receive family pension
The Family Pension Scheme confers monetary benefit on the 286 wife and children of the deceased Railway employee but the employee has no title to it
The employee has no control over the family pension as he is not required to make any contribution to it
The Family Pension Scheme is in the nature of a welfare scheme framed by the Railway Administration to provide relief to the widow and minor children of the deceased employee
Since the Rules do not provide for nomination of any person by the deceased employee during his life time for the payment of family pension he has no title to the same
Therefore it does not form part of his estate enabling him to dispose of the same by testamentary disposition
In Jodh Singh vs Union of India  Anr   this Court on an elaborate discussion held that family pension is admissible on account of the status of a widow and not on account of the fact that there was some estate of the deceased which devolved on his death to the widow
The Court observed Where a certain benefit is admissible on account of status and a status that is acquired on the happening of certain event namely on becoming a widow on the death of the husband such pension by no stretch of imagination could ever form part of the estate of the deceased
If it did not form part of the estate of the deceased it could never be the subject matter of testamentary disposition
The Court further held that what was not payable during the life time of the deceased over which he had no power of disposition could not form part of his estate
Since the qualifying event occurs on the death of the deceased for the payment of family pension monetary benefit of family pension cannot form part of the estate of the deceased entitling him to dispose of the same by testamentary disposition
We accordingly hold that Mrs Violet Issac the widow of the deceased Railway employee is entitled to receive the family pension notwithstanding the will alleged to have been executed by the deceased on 991984 in favour of his brother Elic Alfred
As regards appellant Nos 2 to 6 are concerned it has been stated on behalf of the Railway Administration that they are not minors therefore under the Rules they are not entitled to any family pension
We accordingly allow the appeal set aside the order of the Tribunal and direct the respondent Railway Adminstration to sanction family pension in accordance with the Rules to the appellant No 1 and to pay the arrears within two months
The respondent s suit so far as it relates to the 287 family pension cannot proceed but we do not express any opinion with regard to other claims raised therein
It has been brought to our notice on behalf of the respondent Railway Administration that the appellants have been occupying the Railway quarter which had been allotted to late Issac Alfred even though they are not entitled to occupy the same
On behalf of the appellants it was urged that since they had not been paid any dues by the Railway Administration they were not in a position to vacate the premises
The Railway Administration is free to evict them in accordance with the Rules only after arrears of family pension are paid to Mrs Violet Issac
The Railway Administration will charge rent from the appellants at the rate on which the quarter had been let out to the deceased Railway employee
There will be no order as to costs
VPR Appeal allowed


Summary:
The dispute between the parties is regarding the ownership rights and right of removal of timber clear felled from 150 acres of jungle area in Kallar Valley in the erstwhile Travancore territory of Kerala State commonly called the Kanan Devan Hills Concession area over which the Poonjar Raja held free hold proprietary rights under the suzerainty of Travancore State
By a deed dated July 11 1877 called the First Concession  Exhibit P 1 the Raja conveyed the concession area with all the Hills and Forests to one JD Munro for a certain cash consideration and a deferred perpetual annual payment from 1884 onwards
This was followed by another deed exhibit P 2 between the same parties reiterating all the original terms
This grant to Munro was ratified by the Travancore Government by a deed dated November 28 1878 Exhibit P 62
Munro in turn assigned the area to the North Travan core Land Planting  Agricultural Society Ltd Later an agreement was executed between the Travancore Government and the Society in August 1886 Exhibit P 64
In 1899 the entire territory comprising the Kanan Devan Hills including the concession area was declared part of Travancore State
After several transfers the concession area finally came to be vested in the Respondent Company in virtue of a Deed dated July 16 1900
Somewhere in 1963 the Respondent Company clear felled about 150 acres in the concession area for cultivation and sought permission from the State Government for grant of free passes to carry the felled timber out of the concession area
The Government by order dated 25111966 informed the company that it could not take out the timber 262 from the concession area without payment of Kuttikanamin terms of the deeds of conveyanceratification
Thereupon the company filed a suit against the State praying inter alia for a declaration claiming full ownership title and right to remove the timber without payment of Kuttikanam a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to grant free passes for removal of the timber and a prohibitory injunction to restrain it from taking any further steps under its order dated 25111966
On the interpretation of Exhibits P 1 P 2 P 62 and P 64 the trial court came to the findings that the company did not acquire absolute proprietary rights over the concession area or the trees and timber
It also held that the Government was justified in demanding Kuttikanam in terms of the Rules framed under the Travancore Cochin Forest Act 1951
Accordingly the suit was dismissed
The Company preferred an appeal to the High Court which was allowed and the decree of the Trial Court set aside
The decision of the High Court has been challenged by the State in this appeal by way of special leave
This court while allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment of the High Court HELD The respondent company did not acquire absolute proprietary rights over the Concession Area or the trees and the timber therein
The company only acquired the right to fell the trees and use the timber subject to the restrictions imposed in clause 7 of the agreement Exhibit P 64
Since the respondent company has no right to remove the timber beyond the limits of the Concession Area the State Government was justified in refusing to permit free transportation of timber from the said area
269C Clause 7 states that no unworked timber or articles manufactured therefrom shall be carried outside the limits of the grant except in conformity with the rules of the forest department for the time being in force
270D The Government of Kerala in exercise of its rule making power under Section 93 of the Travancore Cochin Forest Act 1951 had by a notification dated July 9 1958 framed rules regulating the levy of Kuttikanam on trees standing on Government land
270E The rules were holding the field at the relevant time and the Government was justified in demanding Kuttikanam from the Company
272A B 263