Monday, February 13, 2017

बहन की संपत्ति पर भाई का हक नहीं, सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने कहा भाई को शादीशुदा बहन का उत्तराधिकारी नहीं माना जा सकता : खबर के साथ आदेश भी

नई दिल्ली : सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने व्यवस्था दी है कि शादीशुदा बहन को पति से विरासत में मिली संपत्ति पर भाई कोई हक नहीं जता सकता है। उसे बहन का उत्तराधिकारी या पारिवारिक सदस्य नहीं माना जा सकता है। हंिदूू उत्तराधिकार कानून के प्रावधानों का हवाला देते हुए शीर्ष न्यायालय ने देहरादून निवासी दुर्गा प्रसाद की इस संबंध में दायर याचिका को खारिज कर दिया।

न्यायमूर्ति दीपक मिश्र एवं जस्टिस आर बानुमथि की पीठ ने कहा, ‘कानून की धारा 15 में स्पष्ट उल्लेख किया गया है कि किसी महिला को पति और ससुर से विरासत में मिली संपत्ति पर उन्हीं के उत्तराधिकारियों का अधिकार है।’ अपनी याचिका में दुर्गा प्रसाद ने उत्तराखंड हाई कोर्ट के मार्च, 2015 के आदेश को चुनौती दी थी।

हाई कोर्ट ने अपने आदेश में कहा था कि देहरादून के जिस मकान में याची की स्वर्गीय बहन ललिता किराएदार के रूप में रह रही थी, उस पर दुर्गा ने अवैध कब्जा कर रखा है। उससे कब्जा खाली कराया जाए।

हाई कोर्ट के फैसले को बरकरार रखते हुए शीर्ष न्यायालय की पीठ ने कहा कि विवादित मकान को ललिता के ससुर ने 1940 में किराए पर लिया था। बाद में महिला के पति इसके किराएदार हो गए। उनकी मौत के बाद ललिता किराएदार बन गई। फिर महिला की भी मौत हो गई। कानूनी प्रावधानों के अनुसार दुर्गा प्रसाद को ललिता का वारिस नहीं माना जा सकता है। लिहाजा मकान पर उसका कब्जा अवैध है। उसे खाली कराया जाए।

⚫  आदेश 




CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1305-06 OF 2017

Durga Prasad                                 …..         Appellant


NARAYAN RAMCHANDAANI (D) THR. LRS.      …..      Respondents

                             J U D G M E N T


These appeals arise from the judgment of the High Court  of  Uttarakhand  at

Nainital in Writ Petition(MS) No. 2729 of 2014 dated  09.03.2015  dismissing

the writ petition and  also  the  review  petition,  thereby  affirming  the

findings of Additional District and Sessions Judge-VII,  Dehradun  that  the

appellant is an unauthorized occupant in suit premises and that he does  not

come within the definition  of  ‘family’  of  the  deceased  tenant  as  per

Section 3(g) nor an ‘heir’ under Section 3(a) of the  U.P.  Urban  Buildings

(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.

2.    Brief facts which led to filing of these appeals are as under :

The respondent-landlord filed an  eviction  petition  before  the  Competent

Authority/Civil Judge, (Senior Division)  under  Section  21(1)(a)  of  U.P.

Urban  Buildings  (Regulation  of  Letting,  Rent  &  Eviction)  Act,   1972

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘U.P. Act XIII  of  1972’)  for  release  of

property from the tenant-Late Lalita Devi from  the  suit  property  bearing

No.6/7, Amrit Kaur Road, (New Road), Dehradun on  the  ground  of  his  bona

fide need. Father-in-law of deceased Lalita Devi–Hem Ram  Sharma  had  taken

the suit property on rent and after his death his  son  Baldev  (husband  of

Lalita) became the tenant of the  suit  property  and  after  the  death  of

Baldev, Lalita became the tenant of suit property.   The  appellant  is  the

brother of deceased Lalita, who was the tenant  of  the  respondent  herein.

The application was dismissed vide order dated 19.04.2010 by the  Prescribed

Authority. Aggrieved by the said  order,  respondent-landlord  preferred  an

appeal under Section 22 of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972  before  the  appellate

court which was transferred  to  Additional  District  Judge-VII,  Dehradun.

During  the  pendency  of  appeal,  tenant-Lalita  Devi   passed   away   on

06.07.2013. The respondent-landlord moved a substitution application  before

the appellate court with a prayer  that  the  appellant,  who  is  the  real

brother of deceased, be substituted in her place. The said  application  was

allowed and the appellant was impleaded as  a  defendant/respondent  in  the

said appeal. The appellate Court allowed the said appeal  vide  order  dated

10.10.2014 holding that during the pendency of the appeal the  sole  tenant-

Lalita passed away and Durga Prasad, who  has  been  substituted  is  not  a

member of the ‘family’ and that he has not been able to prove  that  he  was

previously residing with his sister Lalita in the said  premises.  On  those

findings  the  appellate  court  set  aside  the  order  of  the  prescribed

authority and allowed the appeal. Thereafter the appellant-tenant  preferred

a writ petition before the High Court which was dismissed vide the  impugned

order dated 09.03.2015, holding that the appellant does not come within  the

definition of ‘family’ as per Section 3(g) of U.P. Act  XIII  of  1972.  The

High Court further held that vacancy  was  liable  to  be  declared  on  the

demised  premises,  on  the  death  of  sole  tenant–  Lalita,  the   review

application filed by the appellant also came  to  be  dismissed  vide  order

dated 31.08.2015. Both the orders are impugned in these appeals.

3.    Mr. Parthiv Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant contended  that

the High Court erred in holding that the appellant is not a  legal  heir  or

representative of the deceased tenant and the said finding is  perverse  and

contrary to the materials on record. Learned counsel further submitted  that

on the death of the tenant  Lalita,  respondent-landlord  himself  filed  an

application for substitution of the present appellant as the legal  heir  of

the deceased tenant Lalita and the address of the appellant at the  time  of

filing of the application was shown  as  the  same  disputed  property  i.e.

House No.6/7, Amrit Kaur Road, Dehradun  and  which  by  itself  establishes

that appellant has been residing in the said property at the time  of  death

of tenant Lalita. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed  reliance

upon Ganesh Trivedi vs. Sundar Devi and Others (2002) 2 SCC 329  to  contend

that the brother would  inherit  the  tenancy  and  would  fall  within  the

definition of ‘family’.

4.    Learned counsel for the respondent-landlord submitted  that  the  High

Court rightly held that the appellant being brother of tenant Lalita is  not

a member of the ‘family’ as defined under Section 3(g) of the U.P. Act  XIII

of 1972 and the appellant being an unauthorized  occupant,  the  High  Court

rightly ordered to be evicted. It was further contended that the  tenant  of

the suit premises was Lalita and that tenant was a female Hindu and  on  her

death, the devolution of tenancy will be determined as per Section  15(2)(b)

of the Hindu Succession Act and since the appellant does not fall under  the

category of ‘heir’  of  the  husband  of  Lalita,  the  High  Court  rightly

dismissed the writ petition as well as the review petition and the  impugned

orders do not warrant interference.

5.    We have carefully considered the rival  contentions  and  perused  the

impugned order and the materials on record.

6.    The question for consideration is  whether  the  appellant-brother  of

the deceased tenant-Lalita is included in the definition of  ‘family’  under

Section 3(g) or an ‘heir’ under Section 3(a) of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972.

7.    For proper appreciation of the question and  the  contentions  raised,

it is apposite to refer to relevant provisions of Section 3 of the U.P.  Act

XIII of 1972 which defines the term ‘tenant’ and ‘family’ as under:-

“3 (a) “tenant”, in relation to a building, means a person by whom its  rent

is payable, and on the tenant’s death-

in the case of a residential building, such only of his  heirs  as  normally

resided with him in the building at the time of his death;

in the case of a non-residential building, his heirs;

[Explanation – An occupant of a room in a hotel or  a  lodging  house  shall

not be deemed to be a tenant];


(g) “Family”, in relation to a landlord or tenant of a building  means,  his

or her-

(i) spouse;

(ii) male lineal descendants;

(iii) such parents, grandparents and any unmarried or  widowed  or  divorced

or judicially separated daughter or daughter of a  male  lineal  descendant,

as may have been normally residing with him or her,

and includes, in relation to a landlord, any female having a legal right  of

residence in that building.”

8.    Section 12 of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972 relates  to  deemed  vacancies

of a building which reads as under:-

“12. Deemed vacancy of building in certain cases – (1) A landlord or  tenant

of a building shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy  the  building  or  a

part thereof if-

            (a)  he has substantially removed his effects therefrom; or

            (b)  he has allowed it to be  occupied  by  any  person  who  is

      not member of his family; or

            (c)  in the case of  a  residential  building,  he  as  well  as

        members   of   his   family   have   taken   up    residence,    not

being temporary residence, elsewhere.

(2) In the case of non-residential building,  where  a  tenant  carrying  on

business in the building admits a person who is not a member of  his  family

as a partner or a new partner, as the case  may  be,  the  tenant  shall  be

deemed to have ceased to occupy the building.

(3) In the case of a residential building, if the tenant or  any  member  of

his family builds or otherwise acquires in a vacant state or gets vacated  a

residential building in the same city, municipality, notified area  or  town

area in which the building under tenancy is situate, he shall be  deemed  to

have ceased to occupy the building under his tenancy:


9.    A careful analysis of the above  provisions  indicates  that   Section

3(a) uses the word ‘heir’.   Definition  in  Section  3(a)  deals  with  the

contingency when a tenant dies.  It is significant to  note  that  the  word

“family member” is absent in  Section  3(a).   “Family  member”  is  defined

under Section 3(g) of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972 and is also referred  to  in

Section 12 of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972.  The word ‘heir’  in  Section  3(a)

is used in relation to a ‘tenant’ who has  to  succeed  as  “tenant  on  the

tenant’s death”; while ‘family’ is used in Section 12  which  deals  with  a

situation of an existing tenant.  The definition of  ‘family’  as  occurring

in Section 3(g) may not be relevant for  the  purposes  of  determining  the

question as to who would become tenant on  the  death  of  original  tenant,

since Section 3(a) uses the word ‘heir’.

10.   In the present case, we are dealing with the  case  as  to  who  would

become ‘tenant’ on the death of Lalita.  Hence, the definition  of  ‘family’

is not relevant for the purposes of  determining  as  to  who  would  become

tenant on the death  of  tenant  Lalita.   The  only  question  falling  for

consideration is whether the appellant-brother of the tenant  Lalita  is  an

‘heir’ under Section 3(a) of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972.  The word ‘heir’  is

not defined in the Act.  ‘Heir’ is a person who inherits or may  inherit  by

law.  Section 3(1)(f) of the Hindu Succession Act defines ‘heir’ as  ““heir”

means any person, male  or  female,  who  is  entitled  to  succeed  to  the

property of an intestate under this Act;”. The word ‘heir’ has to  be  given

the same meaning as would be applicable to the general  law  of  succession.

In the present case, as pointed out by the High Court, the deceased  tenant-

Lalita being a hindu female, the devolution of tenancy  will  be  determined

under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act.

11.   Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act lays down the general order  of

succession to the  property  of  a  female  intestate  who  dies  after  the

commencement  of  the  Hindu  Succession  Act  and  states  the  scheme   of

succession to her  property  which  is  different  from  that  of  order  of

succession to the property of a male intestate. Sub-section (2)  of  Section

15 carves out two exceptions to the general scheme and order of  succession.

 We are concerned with clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 15 as  noted

above which has been grafted as an exception to the provisions  relating  to

the general order of succession to  the  property  of  a  female  intestate.

Section 15(2)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act reads as under:-

“Section 15. General rules of succession in the case of female Hindus


Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),-


(b). Any property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or  from  her

father-in-law shall devolve, in the absence of any son or  daughter  of  the

deceased (including the children of any predeceased  son  or  daughter)  not

upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the  order  specified

therein, but upon the heirs of the husband.”

The exception carved out in Section 15(2)(b) provides for  a  special  order

of succession in case of property inherited by her from her husband  or  her

father-in-law; but its operation is  confined  to  the  case  of  her  dying

without leaving a son or a daughter or children of pre-deceased children  to

inherit her property.  Language used in the section clearly  specifies  that

the property inherited from the  husband  and  father-in-law  would  devolve

upon  the  heirs  of  husband/father-in-law  from  whom  she  inherited  the

property.   We may usefully refer to the decision of this Court in the  case

of V. Dandapani Chettiar v. Balasubramanian  Chettiar  (Dead)  by  Lrs.  And

Others, (2003) 6 SCC 633, and the relevant para reads hereunder:-

"10. Sub-section (2) of Section 15 carves out an  exception  in  case  of  a

female dying intestate without  leaving  son,  daughter  or  children  of  a

predeceased son or daughter. In such a case, the rule prescribed is to  find

out the source  from  which  she  has  inherited  the  property.  If  it  is

inherited from  her  father  or  mother,  it  would  devolve  as  prescribed

under Section 15(2)(a). If it is  inherited  by  her  from  her  husband  or

father-in-law, it would devolve upon the heirs of her husband  under Section

15(2)(b). The clause enacts that in a case where the property  is  inherited

by a female from her father or mother, it would devolve not upon  the  other

heirs, but upon the heirs of her father. This would mean that  if  there  is

no son or  daughter  including  the  children  of  any  predeceased  son  or

daughter, then the property would devolve upon  the  heirs  of  her  father.

Result would be -- if the property is inherited by a female from her  father

or her mother, neither her husband nor his heirs would  get  such  property,

but it would revert back to the heirs of her father."

12.   In the present case, the suit  property  was  taken  on  rent  by  the

father-in-law of deceased tenant-Lalita that is Hem  Ram  Sharma  and  after

his death, his son Baldev (husband of Lalita)  became  tenant  of  the  suit

property.  Upon his death, Lalita became the tenant of  the  suit  property.

Upon death of Lalita, in terms of Section 15(2)(b) of the  Hindu  Succession

Act, in the absence of any son or daughter of deceased Lalita,  the  tenancy

would devolve upon the heirs of her husband.  Since the appellant  does  not

fall under the category of ‘heir’ of Lalita’s husband, the  tenancy  of  the

suit property will not devolve on him nor can he  be  called  as  an  ‘heir’

under Section 3(a) of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972.

13.   Section 3(g) defines ‘family’, in relation to landlord which  includes

the spouse that is husband or wife of  a  person,  male  lineal  descendants

which means his or her son, son’s son, son’s son’s son and so  on,  parents,

grandparents, unmarried, widowed, divorced daughter or  granddaughter,  etc.

The definition given in the clause is an inclusive one and  is  supposed  to

be construed in its technical meaning which implies what is  not  given  has

to be excluded as not forming part of the  family  of  landlord  or  tenant.

Therefore, sisters and brothers of landlord and  tenant  are  excluded  from

his/her family.  In the facts of present case, the appellant  being  brother

of deceased tenant cannot be held to be the ‘family’ as the  inclusive  list

given under the Act clearly omits “brother and sister” and the  same  cannot

be read therein as the list has to be read and interpreted strictly.

14.   Assuming, for the sake of arguments that the appellant is an  heir  of

Lalita, for devolution of tenancy, on the death  of  Lalita,  the  appellant

has to be a ‘tenant’ within the meaning of Section  3(a)  of  the  U.P.  Act

XIII of  1972.    As  per  Section  3(a)(1),  in  the  case  of  residential

building, in the event of death of a tenant, for  heirs  to  be  treated  as

tenant, the statute requires them to prove  that  they  have  been  normally

residing with the deceased tenant at the time of his/her death.    The  term

used in the section is ‘heir’ which implies  that  not  any  of  the  family

member residing with the tenant would succeed to the tenancy, but  only  the

heirs of  tenant  normally  residing  with  him/her.   The  words  “normally

residing with him” suggests that only those heirs would inherit the  tenancy

rights of deceased tenant who resided with him ordinarily in  normal  course

and not temporarily.  The legislative intent appears to be that  only  those

heirs would inherit tenancy who normally resided with  the  tenant  and  not

occasionally.  In the present case, the appellant claims that  he  has  been

carrying on business in the property along with his deceased  sister  Lalita

and had been ordinarily living    with her because of the  medical  business

they were running.  The appellant being the brother of  deceased-Lalita  had

no reason to normally reside with his married sister.  Be it noted,  in  her

written statement filed in the release application, Lalita has  not  averred

that her brother-appellant Durga Prasad was living with her and that he  was

taking care of her.  As rightly held by the Courts below,  Durga  Prasad  is

neither a ‘heir’ within the meaning of  Section  3(a)  nor  fall  under  the

definition of ‘family’ as per Section 3(g) of the Act.

15.    As  discussed  earlier,  originally  Lalita’s  father-in-law-Hem  Ram

Sharma took the premises on rent in the year 1940.  After his death,  Lalita

Devi’s husband-Baldev became the tenant  of  the  suit  property  and  after

Baldev’s death, Lalita become the tenant of the suit property.   During  the

pendency of the appeal before the First Appellate Court, Lalita  expired  on

06.07.2013.  Thereafter,  the  respondent-landlord  moved   a   substitution

application before the appellate court to substitute the  appellant  who  is

the real brother of deceased-Lalita.  On  that  application,  the  appellant

was impleaded as a defendant-respondent in the said appeal.  As pointed  out

by the High  Court,  the  present  appellant  may  have  been  ‘rightly’  or

‘wrongly’ substituted after the demise of his sister.   Merely  because  the

appellant has been substituted in the place of tenant-Lalita, the  appellant

cannot become a ‘heir’ who normally resided with the tenant Lalita.

16.   Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance  on  Ganesh  Trivedi

(supra), wherein this Court found, as a matter of  fact,  that  brother  was

residing in the  tenanted  premises  and,  therefore,  tenancy  rights  will

devolve upon him on the death of  original  tenant  within  the  meaning  of

Section 3(a)(g) read with Section 12(1)(b) of the U.P.  Act  XIII  of  1972.

This is evident from the following observation made in paras  (9)  and  (10)

of judgment which are reproduced as under:

“9. The brother of a tenant is not included in the definition  of  “family”.

However, the present one is not a case where the  tenant  Suraj  Prasad  had

during his lifetime taken up residence elsewhere  and/or  allowed  the  suit

premises to be occupied by his brother. Deo Narain, being the  real  brother

of late Suraj Prasad, the tenant, had come to stay with his brother and  was

residing along with him as such, even at the time of death of Suraj  Prasad.

It will not therefore be correct to say that applicability of clause (b)  of

sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act was attracted to the suit  premises

during the lifetime of Suraj Prasad and a deemed vacancy  had  occurred.  On

the death of Suraj Prasad tenancy rights devolved on Deo  Narain,  he  being

the only heir. He too became a “tenant” within the meaning of clause (a)  of

Section 3. The decision of the High Court cannot, therefore, be faulted.

10. There is yet another reason why no interference with the impugned  order

of the High Court is called for. Shri  Upadhyay,  the  learned  counsel  for

Respondents 1 to 3 invited our attention to the pleadings  and  pointed  out

that admittedly the sale  deed  executed  by  Jagdamaba  Prasad  Awasthi  in

favour of Ganesh Trivedi, the appellant, contains  recitals  to  the  effect

that the former owner-landlord was well aware of Deo  Narain  occupying  the

suit premises after the death of Suraj Prasad, that he was  acknowledged  by

the landlord as tenant in the premises, and that rent was also paid  by  Deo

Narain to the landlord under receipts issued  by  the  landlord  though  Deo

Narain had fallen into some arrears of rent at the time of sale of the  suit

premises in favour of the  appellant.  Such  admissions  made  by  Jagdamaba

Prasad Awasthi are binding on Ganesh Trivedi,  the  appellant,  inasmuch  as

the same are contained in the sale deed by which title has been  derived  by

the appellant and thereunder the appellant has stepped  into  the  shoes  of

the previous owner-landlord. Deo Narain’s status as tenant in occupation  of

the suit  premises,  cannot,  therefore,  be  doubted  or  disputed  by  the


The aforesaid decision has been rendered in view  of  proven  facts  in  the

said case and, therefore, has no application to the  facts  of  the  present


17.   Upon appreciation of the  facts  and  evidence,  the  first  appellate

court and the High Court rightly held  that  the  appellant  is  neither  an

‘heir’ as visualized under Section 3(a) of the U.P. Act  XIII  of  1972  nor

‘family’ within the meaning  of  Section  3(g)  of  the  Act  and  that  the

appellant is in unauthorized occupation of the suit premises and  is  liable

to be evicted.  The High Court has directed the District Magistrate to  pass

appropriate orders under Section 16 of the U.P. Act  XIII  of  1972  on  the

release application of the landlord without further delay preferably  within

three weeks from the date of judgment of the High Court that is  09.03.2015.

 Father-in-law of Lalita had taken the suit premises on  rent  in  the  year

1940.  In the facts and circumstances of the case,  without  relegating  the

matter to the District Magistrate to pass orders on the release  application

of the respondent-landlord, we deem it appropriate to direct  the  appellant

to hand over vacant possession to the respondent-landlord.

18.   In the result, the appeals are dismissed.  We direct the appellant  to

hand over the vacant possession of the  suit  premises  to  the  respondent-

landlord within four weeks from the date of this  order  failing  which  the

appellant shall be liable for contempt of this Court.


                                                [DIPAK MISRA]


                                                [R. BANUMATHI]

New Delhi;

February 07, 2017.

संबन्धित खबरों के लिए क्लिक करें

GO-शासनादेश NEWS अनिवार्य सेवानिवृत्ति अनुकम्पा नियुक्ति अल्‍पसंख्‍यक कल्‍याण अवकाश आंगनबाड़ी आधार कार्ड आयकर आरक्षण आवास उच्च न्यायालय उच्‍च शिक्षा उच्चतम न्यायालय उत्तर प्रदेश उत्तराखण्ड उपभोक्‍ता संरक्षण एरियर एसीपी ऑनलाइन कर कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि EPF कामधेनु कारागार प्रशासन एवं सुधार कार्मिक कार्यवाही कृषि कैरियर कोर्टशाला कोषागार खाद्य एवं औषधि प्रशासन खाद्य एवम् रसद खेल गृह गोपनीय प्रविष्टि ग्रामीण अभियन्‍त्रण ग्राम्य विकास ग्रेच्युटी चतुर्थ श्रेणी चयन चिकित्सा चिकित्‍सा एवं स्वास्थ्य चिकित्सा प्रतिपूर्ति छात्रवृत्ति जनवरी जनसंख्‍या जनसुनवाई जनसूचना जनहित गारण्टी अधिनियम धर्मार्थ कार्य नकदीकरण नगर विकास निबन्‍धन नियमावली नियुक्ति नियोजन निर्वाचन निविदा नीति न्याय न्यायालय पंचायत चुनाव 2015 पंचायती राज पदोन्नति परती भूमि विकास परिवहन पर्यावरण पशुधन पिछड़ा वर्ग कल्‍याण पीएफ पुरस्कार पुलिस पेंशन प्रतिकूल प्रविष्टि प्रशासनिक सुधार प्रसूति प्राथमिक भर्ती 2012 प्रेरक प्रोन्‍नति प्रोबेशन बजट बर्खास्तगी बाट माप बेसिक शिक्षा बैकलाग बोनस भविष्य निधि भारत सरकार भाषा मकान किराया भत्‍ता मत्‍स्‍य मंहगाई भत्ता महिला एवं बाल विकास माध्यमिक शिक्षा मानदेय मानवाधिकार मान्यता मुख्‍यमंत्री कार्यालय युवा कल्याण राजस्व राज्य कर्मचारी संयुक्त परिषद राज्य सम्पत्ति राष्ट्रीय एकीकरण रोक रोजगार लघु सिंचाई लोक निर्माण लोक सेवा आयोग वरिष्ठता विकलांग कल्याण वित्त विद्युत विविध विशेष भत्ता वेतन व्‍यवसायिक शिक्षा शिक्षा शिक्षा मित्र श्रम सचिवालय प्रशासन सत्यापन सत्र लाभ सत्रलाभ समन्वय समाज कल्याण समाजवादी पेंशन समारोह सर्किल दर संवर्ग संविदा संस्‍थागत वित्‍त सहकारिता सातवां वेतन आयोग सामान्य प्रशासन सार्वजनिक उद्यम सार्वजनिक वितरण प्रणाली सिंचाई सिंचाई एवं जल संसाधन सूक्ष्म लघु एवं मध्यम उद्यम सूचना सेवा निवृत्ति परिलाभ सेवा संघ सेवानिवृत्ति सेवायोजन सैनिक कल्‍याण स्टाम्प एवं रजिस्ट्रेशन स्थानांतरण होमगाडर्स