REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1105 OF 2010 (O&M) :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MAY 06, 2010 Divisional Railway Manager, Ferozepur Cantt. .....Appellant VERSUS Joginder Kaur and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railways, has filed this appeal to challenge that part of impugned order passed by the first Appellate Court, whereby the mother-in-law was held entitled to 1/4th share on account of insurance policy, GPF, PPF and fixed deposit and the appellant is restrained from releasing the share of the respondent-plaintiff mother-in-law out of the above noted benefits to respondent No.6, the wife of the employee. Neither the wife nor the plaintiff-mother-in-law, has come forward to challenge the decision of the first appellate Court, which had held the wife entitled REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1105 OF 2010 (O&M) :{ 2 }: to family pension, gratuity, leave encashment and bonus etc. The grievance of the appellant is that the pensionary benefits are required to be released as per the nomination, which is in the name of defendant No.6 (wife). The appellant accordingly has prayed that a direction not to release the amount to the wife would be beyond the jurisdiction of the Court in terms of the Rule position. As can be noticed, two suits were filed by father and mother (plaintiff) of the employee. The wife of the late employee was impleaded as defendant No.6 in the suit. Since there is no dispute raised on merits of the decision, except to the extent noticed above, there may not be much need to notice the facts in detail. Suffice it to notice that the suit filed by the father was dismissed whereas the suit filed by the mother was partly decreed to the extent that she is entitled to 1/4th share in the entire service benefits as well as the money deposited by the deceased, Gurmail Singh, employee and defendant Nos.1 to 5 were restrained from releasing the benefits to the wife alone. The appellant had filed the appeal before the first Appellate Court, which had modified the judgment passed by the Trial Court by holding that family pension, gratuity, leave encashment and bonus etc. are not part of the estate of the deceased and so, the mother would not be entitled to have share in the family pension, gratuity, leave encashment and bonus. She, however, has been held entitled to 1/4th share out of fixed deposit, G.P.F and insurance policy, which is held to form part of the estate of the deceased employee. Accordingly, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court was modified to hold that mother would be entitled to 1/4th share from the insurance policy, GPF, PPF and fixed deposit. The REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1105 OF 2010 (O&M) :{ 3 }: appellant was restrained to release the share of the mother out of the aforesaid funds. The appellant has filed the present Regular Second Appeal. Notice of motion was issued in this case. The respondents in the appeal, including the mother and wife, who are alone the contesting respondents, were duly served but no one has appeared before the Court. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the view of the first appellate Court that mother is entitled to ¼ share on account of insurance policy, GPF, PPF and fixed deposit can not be sustained. Though, the counsel had made submission to show that insurance policy, GPF, PPF etc. would not be a property but the counsel primarily submits that release of these benefits is to be regulated in terms of the Rules governing the service conditions of the deceased employee and basically would go as per the nomination made. I find justification in the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant. Money due on account of insurance policy has to be paid in terms of the nomination. Similarly, payments of G.P.F. and P.P.F amounts would also be regulated by the Rule position. It would not be appropriate to apply the normal principle of succession. The case, thus, is made out for modifying the direction issued by the first Appellate Court, whereby the appellant was restrained from not releasing the 1/4th share out of insurance policy, GPF, PPF and fixed deposit. The appeal raises a substantial question of law in regard to disbursement of the amounts on account of death of an employee and whether disbursement is required to be REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1105 OF 2010 (O&M) :{ 4 }: made in terms of the rules or in terms of the law of succession. Nothing has been pointed out before me that the law of succession is to govern in this case. No one has come forward to defend the appeal. The case is, thus, made out for modifying the direction issued by the first Appellate Court. The appeal is allowed and the direction restraining the appellant from releasing the ¼ th share of insurance policy, GPF, PPF and fixed deposit are set-aside. There shall be no order as to costs. May 06, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE