In a significant ruling, the Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld the grant of a succession certificate to the second wife of a deceased South Central Railways employee, affirming her entitlement to family pension and other benefits. The judgment, delivered in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 715 of 2024, was rendered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Challa Gunaranjan.
Case Background
The case revolved around the death benefits of late K.J. Prabhakara Rao, an employee of South Central Railways. The petitioners in the original case included Kattem Prashanth Kumari (the second wife) and her two children, who sought a succession certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, for benefits totaling ₹5,74,048. This amount included Provident Fund assets, leave salary, and other service-related payments.
Opposing their claim were the children from Rao’s first marriage, who argued that the second wife was ineligible for the pension under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. The appellants, represented by Mallampalli Srinivas, Central Government Counsel, also contended that they were not bound by an earlier Lok Adalat award that had settled disputes among the family members.
Key Legal Issues
1. Entitlement of the Second Wife: The appellants relied on Rule 75(6) of the Railway Pension Rules and the Supreme Court judgment in Rameshwari Devi v. State of Bihar to argue that a second wife is not eligible for family pension.
2. Validity of the Lok Adalat Award: The appellants asserted that the award, being an arrangement among the heirs, could not impose obligations on third parties, including the Railways.
3. Applicability of Section 381 of the Indian Succession Act: This provision protects debtors who make payments in good faith to holders of succession certificates, even if disputes arise later.
Court’s Observations
The High Court addressed each contention raised by the appellants:
– On Rule 75(6) of Pension Rules: The Court observed that the provision recognizes a “widow” as eligible for family pension. Since the second marriage was not proven to be void, and the first wife was deceased, the second wife qualifies as a “widow” under the rule.
– On the Lok Adalat Award: The Court clarified that while the award binds the parties involved, the appellants’ responsibility is limited to paying the benefits as per the succession certificate issued by the District Court. The award itself does not absolve them from their liability under the Pension Rules.
– On Succession Certificate Validity: Citing Madhvi Amma Bhawani Amma v. Kunjikutty Pillai Meenakshi Pillai, the Court reiterated that a succession certificate provides legal indemnity to debtors for payments made in good faith.
Court’s Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that there was no illegality in the Principal District Judge’s order granting the succession certificate. It emphasized that the marriage validity of the second wife was never questioned, and she had adequately established her entitlement through documentary evidence, including a marriage certificate and voter records.
The Court directed the appellants to process the arrears of ₹41,70,324, deposited with the Registrar (Judicial), to the second wife’s verified bank account after completion of procedural formalities, including stamp duty payment.
