R.S.A.No. 3390 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 3390 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.9.2009 General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi and another ......Appellants Versus Jeet Kaur and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Amit K.Singh, Advocate, for the appellants. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs -respondents filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction, which was decreed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Ferozepur vide judgment and decree dated 29.11.2007. In appeal, the said judgment and decree were upheld by the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur vide judgment and decree dated 23.4.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate R.S.A.No. 3390 of 2009 (O&M) 2 Court in para Nos. 2 to 6 of its judgment, are as under:- “2. In nutshell the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect that plaintiffs and defendants No.3 to 5 are legal heirs of deceased Makhan Singh and are entitled to benefits to the extent of their respective shares in the gratuity, provident fund, insurance, balance of salary and other benefits left by deceased Makhan Singh, who was working as peon in the DRM Officer, Ferozepur with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining defendants No.1 and 2 from paying the aforesaid benefits to defendant No.3 only. 3. The case of plaintiffs is that Makhan Singh was working as a peon at Control Office in DRM office of Ferozepur Cantt. who had since expired on 25.4.2003 during the course of his services. Plaintiffs and defendants No.3 to 5 are legal heirs of deceased Makhan Singh. Plaintiffs No.1 to 3 are his daughters, defendant No.3 is his son, whereas, plaintiffs No.4 to 7 and defendants No.4 and 5 are legal heirs of Balbir Singh predeceased son of deceased Makhan Singh. Plaintiffs No.1 to 3 have got 1/5th share each in the estate of deceased Makhan Singh, whereas, plaintiffs No.4 to 7 and defendants No. 4 and 5 have got 1/30th share each in R.S.A.No. 3390 of 2009 (O&M) 3 the estate of deceased Makhan Singh. Defendant No.3 has inherited 1/5th share in the estate of deceased Makhan Singh. Since Makhan Singh was employee with the Railway Department, the plaintiffs and defendants No. 3 to 5 are entitled to gratuity, provident fund, insurance, balance of salary and other benefits as per their respective shares. Defendants No.1 and 2 have no right to make the payment of the amount of entire benefits to defendant No. 3. It s alleged that the officials of the defendant No.2 had threatened that they would make the payment of the entire amount to defendant No.3. Request was made to the concerned officials of defendant No.1 and 2 by the plaintiffs, but they flatly refused to admit their claim, which results in filing of present suit by the plaintiffs. 4. Upon notice, defendants appeared and contested the suit. Defendants No.1 and 2 filed joint written statement by taking preliminary objections therein that the suit of plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form. On merits employment of deceased Makhan Singh with defendant No.2 is admitted, whereas, legal heirs of deceased Makhan Singh are denied for want of knowledge. It is alleged that the legal heirs of deceased are entitled to the service benefits under the Railway R.S.A.No. 3390 of 2009 (O&M) 4 Service (Pension) Rules 1993. The payment will be made under the said rules. It is also alleged that as per the definition of Family as given in Rule 70 (5) read with Rule 71 (1) (b) (i) of the said Rules only surviving son is entitled to service benefits. It is also alleged that the married daughters and the children of the pre deceased son of deceased employee are not entitled to any benefits in the presence of surviving son Ranjit Singh. Rest of the averments of plaint are denied and a prayer for dismissal of suit is made. 5. Defendant No.3 filed written statement by taking preliminary objections therein that the present suit is not maintainable, plaintiffs have no right or locus standi to institute or file the present suit as the plaintiffs have taken their share during life time of deceased Makhan Singh. On merits the relations between the parties, death of deceased Makhan Singh and his services with Railway Department are admitted, however, rest of averments of plaint are denied and it is alleged that plaintiffs and defendants No.4 and 5 have got their share and considerable wealth from Makhan Singh deceased during his life time. It is also alleged that Balbir Singh elder son of Makhan Singh deceased died about 12/13 years back during his services. His services benefits were paid to R.S.A.No. 3390 of 2009 (O&M) 5 plaintiffs No.4 to 7 and defendants no.4 to 5. It is also alleged that after death of Balbir Singh, deceased Makhan Singh took care of family of his son Balbir Singh. He constructed a separate house for Balbir Singh in his life time from his own wealth. He also spent a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on the marriage of Jasbir Kaur daughter of Balbir Singh. Beside that Makhan Singh also spent huge amount on other legal heirs. 6. Defendants No.4 and 5 in their written statement admitted the case of plaintiffs. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- 1. Whether plaintiffs and defendants No.3 to 5 are the LRs of Makhan Singh? OPP 2. Whether plaintiffs No.1 to 3 are entitled to 1/5th share each and plaintiffs No.4 to 7 are entitled to 1/30th share each and defendant No.3 is entitled to 1/5th share and defendants No.4 and 5 are entitled to 1/30th share of the gratuity, provident fund, insurance, balance of salary and other benefits of Makhan Singh? OPP and OPP 4 and 5. 2-A Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the consequential relief of permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP R.S.A.No. 3390 of 2009 (O&M) 6 3. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable? OPP 4. Whether the alleged compromise affected between the parties has any effect on the suit? OPD 5. Relief. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. The plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction. The lis between the parties was with regard to the gratuity and retrial benefits of deceased Makhan Singh, who was working with the appellants. The case of the appellants was that as per their rules, the gratuity and retrial benefits could be paid only to the surviving son of deceased Makhan Singh, defendant No.3. Admittedly, the plaintiffs and defendants No.3 to 5 are the Class-I legal heirs of deceased Makhan Singh, whose service benefits are in dispute. The dispute is only with regard to the disbursement of the service benefits. A compromise was effected between the plaintiffs and defendants No.3 to 5 and as per the same, parties had no objection if the service benefits of deceased Makhan Singh were disbursed as per the claim made in the suit. In these circumstances, both the Courts below rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. Although as per the rules of the R.S.A.No. 3390 of 2009 (O&M) 7 appellants, the benefits were to be paid to the sons of the deceased but since parties had arrived at a compromise and defendants No.3 to 5 had no objection if the amount in question was disbursed as per the claim made in the suit, no ground for interference by this Court is made out. Substantial justice has been done in this case. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE September 22, 2009 anita