P.B.BAJANTHRI,J. - (1.) In the present petition, the petitioners have questioned the validity of the communication dated 25.2.2013 by which petitioners' claim for certain financial benefits on account of their son's death has been declined and further sought for a direction for payment of financial benefits.
(2.) Petitioners' son was appointed as Constable in the BSF on 5.4.2007. While joining services, he had nominated petitioner No.2 as his nominee under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. It is stated that deceased Constable married in the year 2009 to fourth respondent Neeraj Yadav. During the intervening period from 2009 to 14.1.2013, deceased Constable did not change the nomination from second petitioner to that of Neeraj Yadav - fourth respondent. Petitioners' son - Constable died while he was on duty on 14.1.2013. The petitioners approached respondent Nos.1 to 3 seeking to extend financial benefits on account of their son's death with reference to the fact that he had nominated petitioner No.2 as nominee for the purpose of financial benefits. The respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner that they are not entitled since their son got married in the year 2009 to fourth respondent. The petitioners are aggrieved by the rejection of their claim. Hence, this petition.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is undisputed that second petitioner has been nominated as a nominee by the deceased Constable. Therefore, petitioners are entitled to all financial benefits on account of death of their son. On the other hand, learned counsel for Union of India submitted that nominee is entitled for Central Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme, DCRG and insofar as Seema Prahari Beema Yojana (LIC), legal heir (s) of the deceased Constable is/are entitled subject to production of succession certificate. Insofar as leave encashment is concerned under Rule 39-C of CCS (Leave) Rules, widow is entitled for leave encashment.;