Is A Succession Certificate Mandatory In Undisputed Legal Heirship? Delhi High Court Clarifies

Is a succession certificate mandatory for claiming family pension? This question came out prominently when the bureaucratic red tape denied a family pension to the undisputed and only legal heir. The Delhi High Court in this matter clarified that when the “legal heirship is undisputed and stands duly established”, a succession certificate need not be insisted upon. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav addressed the typical grievance of families and held that in case of undisputed heirship, a survivor certificate is sufficient proof to release the dues of the deceased employees to their legal heir.  

The court emphasised that the administrative technicalities should not serve as a hindrance for legal heirs in receiving the retirement or pensionary dues, when they are already dealing with the death of a family member.

The petitioners in this case are children of the deceased father, Late Ram Singh, who retired from the Indian Civil Accounts Services on December 31, 2000. The deceased, during his service in 2000, was entitled to a promotion to the Junior Administrative Grade (JAG), but was put on hold due to a pending criminal case.

In 2012, he was acquitted, but his promotional benefits were denied because he was already superannuated. He challenged the denial in the High Court and the Supreme Court in early 2021. When the court ruled in his favour, the government finally issued a retrospective promotion order on May 13, 2021. But unfortunately, Singh passed away on April 26, 2021, a few days before the order was released.

The retrospective promotion meant payment of an arrear of Rs 3,85,684 to him, which Singh’s children claimed after their father’s death. In response to this, the respondent (Union of India) issued an order in May 2022,  in compliance with the office memorandum issued in 2013 and 2022. It asked the legal heirs (children) to provide a succession certificate before they could release arrears to them.

The counsel of the petitioners argued that this requirement is arbitrary. The counsel argued that the petitioners are the sole legal heirs, that they had already provided a survivorship certificate, and that no other claimant has come forward after their father’s passing. Thus, insistence on the succession certificate was not serving any purpose but only delaying the payment.  

Court Observation

The court, after checking the said office memorandum, noted that a succession certificate is not an “invariable requirement” in releasing the dues to the legal heirs in the absence of a valid nomination. The Court noted that the instructions mention releasing arrears based on a “satisfactory documentary proof” establishing legal heirship and the relationship of the beneficiaries with the deceased.

The court held that a succession certificate should not be insisted upon as a “matter of course” where legal heirship is undisputed and duly established.

Court Judgment

The court found that “insistence for production of the succession certificate is not called for”. It directed the respondents to release the arrears solely based on the survivorship certificate to the legitimate beneficiaries and disposed of the petition.