Compendium of Court Cases on Payment of Gratuity Act

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER(CENTRAL), NEW DELHI

SECTION-LS SECTION

COMPENDIUM OF RELEVANT COURT CASES FOR REFERENCE OF OUR OFFICERS

---

[2025:RJ-JP:18282]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1973/2024

Hemlata Sharma Wife Of Satish Chand Sharma, Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of House No. 446, Ekta Nagar-A, Heerapura, Ajmer Road, Jaipur (Raj.).

----Appellant

Versus

1. Vandana Tripathi Wife Of Late Shri Anand Dadhich, Resident Of F-1, Plot No. B, Ganpatpura, Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur 240/28, Holidara, Naya Bazar, Ajmer (Raj.).
2. Charchit Dadhich Son Of Late Shri Anand Dadhich, Resident Of F-1, Plot No. B, Ganpatpura, Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur 240/28, Holidara, Naya Bazar, Ajmer (Raj.).
3. State Bank Of India, Through Branch Manager, Sector-8, Chitrakoot, Ajmer Road, Jaipur (Raj.).
4. Life Insurance Corporation, Jaipur, Branch Manager, Tripolia Bazar, Jaipur (Raj.).
5. Max Life Insurance Pvt. Ltd., Through Manager, Ahinsa Circle, Ashok Marg, Jaipur (Raj.).
6. Birla Sunlife Insurance, Through Branch Manager, Ahinsa Circle, Ashok Marg, Jaipur (Raj.).
7. Bank Of Baroda, Through Branch Manager, Dcm, Ajmer Road, Jaipur (Raj.).
8. Har Khas, Aam.

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Ms. Sampti Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajay Kumar Tanenia- No.4 Mr. Gauri Jasana for Mr. Prateek Kasliwal-No.5

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

Judgment

Date of Reserve ::: April 28, 2025 Date of Pronouncement ::: May 16, 2025

---

[2025:RJ-JP:18282] (2 of 20) [CMA-1973/2024]

REPORTABLE

1. This civil misc. appeal has been preferred by the applicant/ appellant against the order dated 15.04.2024 passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan-II (for short ‘the court below’) in Civil Misc. (Succession) Application No. 1310/2021 (1315/2021) filed under section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short ‘the Act of 1925’).

The challenge has been made to the order dated 15.04.2024 to the extent of dismissal of the claim of the appellant of 1/3rd share as regards the amount of the Insurance Policies in the name of the deceased Anand Dadhich, who is the son of the appellant and allowing the succession of respondents No.1 and 2 over the said Policies.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant Hemlata Sharma, mother of the deceased Anand Dadhich moved an application under section 372 of the Act of 1925 for seeking succession certificate as regards the FDR amount, amount in the Savings Bank Account of the State Bank of India in the name of the deceased Anand Dadhich and so also certain Insurance Policies in his name. It was stated in the application that the appellant is having two sons and one daughter namely; Anand Dadhich, Gagan Dadhich and daughter Arti Dadhich. Her son Anand Dadhich was married to the respondent No.1- Vandana Tripathi and they had a son

---

[2025:RJ-JP:18282] (3 of 20) [CMA-1973/2024]

named Charchit Dadhich (respondent No.2) from their wedlock. It was further stated that Anand Dadhich expired on 25.06.2021 and after his death his first category successors are the appellant as well as respondents No.1 and 2. It was further stated that the deceased son of the appellant Anand Dadhich was having certain Insurance Policies and Savings Bank Account in the State Bank of India, Chitrakut Branch, Jaipur and also having FDRs of the Bank of Baroda. Deceased Anand Dadhich had not executed any will in favour of any person and therefore, the appellant as well as respondents No.1 and 2 being the first category successors, sould get to hold 1/3rd share each in succession out of the Insurance Policies, Savings and the FDRs.

3. After service of notice upon the respondents, respondents No.1 and 2 filed reply to the application. Since respondent No.1 is the nominee in the Insurance Policies, she has stated that she has a right to get the amount of maturity of the Policies and also stated that she is entitled to receive the amount lying in the Savings Account as well as in the FDRs and has thus prayed to dismiss the application. The remaining respondents No.3,4 and 5 have also filed their reply, however, no-one appeared on behalf of respondents No.6 and 7.

---

[2025:RJ-JP:18282] (4 of 20) [CMA-1973/2024]

4. It was further stated that when the appellant as well as respondents No.1 and 2 moved separate applications for claiming the amount in the Savings Account, FDR as well as the maturity claim of the Policies in the name of Anand Dadhich, the concerned authorities asked the appellant as well as respondents No.1 and 2 to get the succession certificate from the Competent Court.

5. The learned court below framed three issues. After recording the evidence of the parties, the court below disposed of the application for succession certificate vide order dated 15.04.2024 holding that the appellant is entitled to get 1/3rd share of the amount in the Savings Account of deceased- Anand Dadhich and so also in the amount of the FDR, however, dismissed the succession certificate as regards the maturity claim of the Insurance Policies in the name of the deceased son- Anand Dadhich.

6. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant being the first category successor along-with respondents No.1 and 2, is also entitled to get 1/3rd share in the maturity claim of the Policies in the name of deceased son- Anand Dadhich. He further submits that merely because respondent No.1 has been the nominee, the claim of the appellant cannot be discarded. Counsel for the appellant also

---

[2025:RJ-JP:18282] (5 of 20) [CMA-1973/2024]

submits that the nominee is appointed to collect the benefits but the actual beneficiaries would be all the successors.

7. No-one has put in appearance on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 and appearance has only been given by the counsels appearing for respondents No. 4 and 5.

8. Counsel appearing for respondent No.5- Max Life Insurance Pvt. Ltd. submits that they have already disbursed the maturity claim of the Insurance Policy issued by them on the basis of the succession certificate dated 15.04.2024.

9. Counsel appearing for respondent No.4- Life Insurance Corporation submits that they have not yet disbursed the maturity claim of the Polices in the name of deceased- Anand Dadhich.

10. The only issue which requires consideration by this Court is ‘Whether the Nominee, as mentioned in the Insurance Policy, is alone entitled to seek the benefits arising out of the Insurance Policy or the Successors of the person in whose name the Insurance Policy was issued, will get the fruits in equal share?’ The appellant is the mother of deceased- Anand Dadhich in whose name the Insurance Policies were issued and respondent No.1- wife of Anand Dadhich was nominated as a Nominee.