RSA No.1878 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1878 of 2009 (O&M) Decided on :22.01.2010 Chhiddi Devi ... Appellant versus Smt. Chauvi Devi & others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. Inderjeet Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. **** 1.Whether Reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court reversing that of the trial court and thereby dismissing the suit of the appellant claiming that she is entitled to service benefits of her father along with her widow mother. The facts of the case are that Chhotu Ram who was a defence personnel, had nominated his wife as beneficiary for his service benefits. He had two daughters and an old mother. Both the daughters got married in his life-time. Subsequently, after his death, the immovable and other property of the said Chhotu Ram devolved on all his heirs. However, with regard to the service benefits, the same were released to the widow who, as mentioned above, was the nominee. The ld. Lower Appellate Court relied on the decision of this Court in Jagdish Lal Sharma vs. Nirmala reported as 2008 (4) SCT 776, wherein it was held that once the RSA No.1878 of 2009 (O&M) -2- provisions of Hindu Succession Act are not applicable to provident fund, gratuity and GIS, then these benefits have to be given as per the nomination of the deceased & the same are to be governed by the statutory rules, and thereby dismissed the suit. Following questions have been proposed: i) Whether the nominee alone is entitled to the retiral benefits of the deceased? ii) Whether all the legal heirs are entitled to the retiral benefits of the deceased? iii) Whether the appellate court has misread and misinterpreted the evidence on record? It would be seen that all the questions are related questions. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to persuade me that the service benefits are covered by the Hindu Succession Act in view of the above mentioned judgment of this Court. Holding the proposed questions against the appellant, this appeal is dismissed. January 22, 2010 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE