The Allahabad High Court has held that a court dealing with an application for a succession certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act cannot finally decide who is entitled to family pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits of a deceased employee.

It held that such entitlement flows from the service rules governing the benefit and must be decided by the competent authority, not by applying the general law of succession.

Justice Anil Kumar-X held,

“.. the question as to who is a legal heir of the deceased and the question as to who is entitled to receive a particular service benefit are two distinct questions. The former may be governed by the law of succession, whereas the latter has to be determined in accordance with the statutory rules governing that particular benefit.”

Appellant Smt. Shashi sought a succession certificate for a claimed half share in Rs. 2,64,521/- lying with the department of late Sushil Kumar, a Constable in the U.P. Police, towards pension, gratuity, group insurance and other service benefits. She claimed to have married him on 16.06.1994 and said that she and his mother, Smt. Sona Devi, were his only legal heirs. The application was opposed by Smt. Sona Devi and others, who set up minor Dev Sehgal as the son of the deceased, born of his relationship with Mannu Devi.

The Trial Court held Smt. Shashi to be the legally wedded wife, whose status did not end merely because she lived separately. On the family register and other documents it also found Dev Sehgal to be the son of the deceased and, applying Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, held him entitled to his father's service benefits. Family pension was directed to be paid to the minor through his guardian, Smt. Sona Devi, and gratuity, GPF and group insurance were held payable to Smt. Shashi, Smt. Sona Devi and the minor.

In appeal, it was argued for Smt. Shashi that the minor was not a legal heir and that under the U.P. Police (Extra Ordinary Pension) Rules, 1961, family pension is payable to the widow.

The respondents contended that a child of a void marriage is legitimate under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act and cannot be denied his father's service benefits.

The Court held that pension and other death-cum-retiral benefits form a separate class of rights created by statute, which never belonged to the deceased in his lifetime, the rules themselves prescribing who falls within the “family” and who may receive a particular benefit.

It relied on Jodh Singh v. Union of India and Smt. Violet Issac v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court held family pension payable by reason of the claimant's status under the relevant Rules and not as part of the estate.

“Once the rule-making authority has specifically identified the eligible persons, the general law of succession cannot be used to enlarge that class. A person may, therefore, be a legal heir of the deceased and yet not be entitled to a particular service benefit.”

Noting that a succession certificate under Part X of the Act is principally concerned with debts and securities, the Court held that the Court below could not have conclusively fixed entitlement on the footing of the parties' status as heirs. It held that the finding of Dev Sehgal's parentage did not by itself give him a right to family pension against the service rules.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the order dated 24.9.2011 of the Additional District Judge, Court No.10, Saharanpur was set aside to the extent it finally determines entitlement to family pension and other service benefits, with the competent authority directed to decide the rival claims afresh under the applicable rules, uninfluenced by those findings.