0

Payment Admissible under the rules to the Government Employee on his death: Gauhati High Court

The Amount of death gratuity or retirement Gratuity payable to the person in favour of succession certificate in respect of the gratuity granted by the court of law. In the absence of no family or nominee then the benefit will be claimed by the party proving under the Succession certificate held in the Gauhati High Court before the HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SUDHANSHU DHULIA AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SIUMITRA SAIKIA in the matters of Smti. Jyotsna Kakati v. The Northeast Frontier Railway and Ors. [ WP(C) No. 3604 of 2015]

The Background of the case arise from the Government employee working in the Indian Railways who died at the age of 53 years. The Deceased employee sister filed a petition before the Railway Authorities for grant of pension and all other retiral benefits. The petitioner is a widow and has two children. Petitioner submitted a nominal certificate for the blood relation. The application filed by the petitioner was rejected by the railway authorities on the grounds laid down under the Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993.

The Grant of pension is governed as per Rule 70 of 1993- After completion of five years of employment in railway service is eligible for service gratuity or pension on the retirement. Gratuity equal to one-fourth of his emoluments for each completed six monthly periods of qualifying service subject to a maximum of sixteen and one-half times the emoluments and shall no ceiling on reckonable emoluments for calculating the gratuity. The railway servant dies during the service the amount will be entitled to wife, husband, son, unmarried daughter, step/widow daughter, brother (below the age of 18 years) unmarried sister or widow sister.

The Hon’ble Court held that “The railway servant died while in service without receiving the amount of gratuity and left behind no family. In such a case the death gratuity will be benefiting the person who justifies the succession certificate and shouldn’t violate rule 70. The petitioner is a married sister and not liable to claim for the benefit.

 

Click here to Read the Judgement.

Judgement reviewed – Kaviya S

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat