ANGREJ SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Bijender Singh, an employee of the E.S.I. Corporation died leaving behind his widow Smt. Raj wanti and a son named Rohit. Smt. Rajwanti was appointed on compassionate ground on 23.1.1991 as a Peon. In addition to the aforesaid employment, Smt. Rajwanti was the recipient of the family pension also. She married again on 14.1.1997 and thereby lost her claim for family pension. The aforesaid family pension was, however, transferred on to Rohit vide PPO dated 18.8.1998. Smt. Rajwanti continued to work as a Peon, however. On 7.7.1997 a daughter, named Shalu was born to her from the second marriage with SHRI Angrej Singh, one of the two applicants in the present O.A. The other applicant is the aforesaid daughter Ms. Shalu. On 5.1.2000 Smt. Rajwanti also died leaving behind the aforesaid SHRI Angrej Singh and Ms. Shalu, both the applicants in the present O.A. as well as Rohit, her son from the previous marriage. The grievance raised is that the pensionary and the other benefits arising from Smt. Rajwanti's death have not been released in favour of the applicants, and this is despite the Memorandum dated 21.7.2000 (Annexure-G) issued by the respondents which clearly recognizes the fact of Smt. Rajwanti's re-marriage with SHRI Angrej Singh (one of the applicants in the present O.A.) on 14.1.1997.

(2.) The respondents' case is that insofar as the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity and the Group Savings Linked Insurance Scheme are concerned, the deceased employee (Smt. Rajwanti) had in her life time nominated her son, Rohit aforesaid, as her nominee (Annexures R-1 and R-2). Thus, the corresponding benefits will, according to the respondents, go to Rohit alone.

(3.) ACCORDING to the respondents, the applicants' claim is to be considered necessarily vis-a-vis the claim of Rohit in whose favour valid nominations were made by the deceased employee (Smt. Rajwanti) in respect of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity and Group Savings Linked Insurance Scheme. Rohit has not been made a party in the present O.A. and, therefore, the respective claims cannot be decided. On the other hand, according to the respondents, the present O.A. should be dismissed for non-joinder of essential party.