1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3006/2007 Smt. Pushpa Devi Mahatma Vs. Managing committee, Sri Krishna Middle School & Anr. DATE OF ORDER : - 27.3.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. Rakesh Arora, for the petitioner. Mr. Shyam Sundar Ladhrecha, for the respondents. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. The deceased Hari Prakash was employee of an educational institution, who obtained an order from the Rajasthan Non-Educational Institution Tribunal, Jaipur on 8th Nov., 2005 wherein the respondent-institution was directed to pay the amount of gratuity with interest @ 9% per annum, benefit of selection grades as per the Government circular dated 25.1.1992, encashment of privilege leave and fixation of his salary as per the recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission and the Revised Pay Scale Rules, 1998. the tribunal directed to pay the said benefits to the deceased within three months from the date of order. Unfortunately, before that the employee – husband of the petitioner died on 12.8.2005 before the tribunal could have passed the 2 order dated 8th Nov., 2005. The retiral benefits were not given to the decedents of the deceased-employee then the petitioner-wife of the deceased submitted present execution petition before the court below wherein a petition has been submitted under Sec. 47 CPC raising an objection that petitioner has not obtained the succession certificate and, therefore, she is not entitled to execute the order of the tribunal. One of the grounds against the execution of order of the tribunal dated 8.11.2005 is that the applicant-petitioner applied for benefits arising out of the tribunal's order dated 8th Nov., 2005 after 5 years and that the applicant has not obtained the succession certificate. The objections were allowed by the executing court, therefore, aggrieved against the order dated 2nd March, 2007, this writ petition has been preferred by the widow of the deceased employee. So far as contention of learned counsel for the respondent that the applicant sought execution of the tribunal's order dated 8th Nov., 2005 after 5 years is factually wrong. In fact, employee himself approached the tribunal in the year 2001 for the reliefs and obtained the order in his favour on 8th Nov., 2005 and the execution has 3 been launched in the year 2006. Therefore, the applicant sought execution without any delay rather say, with promptness. The contention of learned counsel for the respondents that there may be problems as there may be different claimants who may raise claim against the respondents for the monetary benefits, if they will pay the amount to the employee's wife. The order passed by the tribunal under the Act of 1989 is an order passed for the service benefits of the deceased employee and substantially as such is not an order/decree for recovery of any debt in strict sense. The employee cannot be dragged to multiplicity of the proceedings merely by saying that he should apply for succession certificate. The widows cannot be denied the service benefits normally by the employer. After payment of the amount by the order of the court, any dispute arises then the dispute will be between the claimant and the person who received the benefits and the authorities can certainly take a plea that they bonafidely paid the amount to the one of the natural heir of the deceased and they cannot be held liable to pay amount again in any manner. 4 In view of the above reasons, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 3rd March, 2007 is set aside. The respondents shall make the payment to the petitioner forthwith preferably within a period of two moths from today after calculating it properly. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-