1 332311 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3323 OF 2011 Pushpaben Hitendra Patel & Anr. ...Petitioners V/s. M.T.N.L. & Ors. ...Respondents Ms. Nisha Valani for the Petitioners Mr. Viral D. Shukla i/by M/. Shukla & Associates for Respondents No. 1 to 3 CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND R.Y. GANOO, JJ. DATE: 5TH AUGUST, 2011 P.C.:- Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. The grievance in this petition is that respondents No. 1 to 3 have no valid reason to withhold the death claim benefits receivable by petitioner No.1, who was the legally wedded wife of deceased Hitendra Chotalal Patel. The said respondents, on affidavit, have stated that, so far as claim for pension is concerned, in view of Rule 54(8) of the C.C.S. 2 332311 (Pension) Rules, 1972, petitioner No.1, being legally wedded wife, would be entitled for the said benefits. The Department would take appropriate measures to release the pension amount to petitioner No. 1 expeditiously. We accept the said assurance given by respondents No. 1 to 3. 3. Insofar as the other death claims of the deceased Hitendra Chotalal Patel, it is stated, on affidavit, that he had nominated his mother. As a result, the mother, respondent No. 4, would be entitled to receive the said amount as nominee of deceased Hitendra Chotalal Patel. The counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No. 4 has been duly served, and has not chosen to appear before this Court. Respondent No. 4, being nominee, would be only acting as trustee for and on behalf of the heirs and legal representatives of deceased Hitendra Chotalal Patel, husband of petitioner No. 1, and the amount so received by her ought to be apportioned between the heirs and legal representatives, who are entitled to inherit the said amount. Indeed, the fact that respondent No. 4 has been nominated by deceased Hitendra Chotalal Patel does not mean that she alone can avail of the death claim benefits payable to the heirs and legal representatives of deceased Hitendra Chotalal Patel. 3 332311 4. However, if petitioner No.1, being widow of deceased Hitendra Chotalal Patel, or any other legal representative is desirous of getting share in the said amount payable towards death claim benefits, would be required to obtain Succession Certificate to establish his / her claim, only whence, he / she would be entitled for an order directing the authorities to release commensurate amount in his / her favour directly or through respondent No. 4, who has been nominated by deceased Hitendra Chotalal Patel. 5. The counsel for the petitioners submits that the amount involved is very negligible, and the petitioners will have to unnecessarily pursue remedy of obtaining Succession Certificate, which is avoidable. Respondent No. 4 has no objection, if the petitioners were to receive other death claim benefits. That is a matter between the parties to be worked out and a joint undertaking / indemnity bond to be filed before the concerned Authority. If such joint undertaking / indemnity bond is acceptable to the Authority, we have no manner of doubt that the Authority would act upon the same, and release the amount forthwith. However, if there is some doubt, it is open to the concerned Authority to call upon the petitioners to apply for Succession Certificate. That intimation should be sent not later than two weeks from the date of 4 332311 filing of joint undertaking / indemnity bond by the heirs and legal representatives so as to enable the concerned heirs and legal representatives to apply for Succession Certificate, if so advised. 6. The fact that the amount involved is negligible cannot be the basis to dispense with the requirement of Succession Certificate, if all the heirs of the deceased are not ad idem on the payment to be received by particular heirs of the deceased. To overcome that difficulty, the need to obtain Succession Certificate would be essential. 7. The petition is disposed of on the above terms. R.Y. GANOO, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.