1. Dispute over General Provident Fund distribution between wife and mother following the death of a government employee where the original nomination became invalid upon marriage. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 2007
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Karol, Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.
Smt. Bolla Malathi – Appellant
Versus
B. Suguna And Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 14604 of 2025 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 8303 of 2025)
Decided On : 05-12-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Hari Vishnu, Adv. Mr. Likhi Chand, Adv. Mr. Venkita Subramoniam T.R, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. A. Selvin Raja, AOR Mr. Brijender Chahar Ld, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Jagdish Chandra, Adv. Mr. Bhakti Vardhan Singh, Adv. Ms. Gayatri Mishra, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Hari Vishnu, Adv. Mr. Likhi Chand, Adv. Mr. Venkita Subramoniam T.R, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. A. Selvin Raja, AOR Mr. Brijender Chahar Ld, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Jagdish Chandra, Adv. Mr. Bhakti Vardhan Singh, Adv. Ms. Gayatri Mishra, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
General Provident Fund – Nomination – When nomination becomes invalid, amount is to be distributed/divided amongst all eligible members.
Headnote:
General Provident Fund (Central Service) Rules, 1960 – Rule 33 – General Provident Fund – Nomination – When nomination becomes invalid, amount is to be distributed/divided amongst all eligible members – It may be so that Rules do not provide for auto cancellation but they provide for eventuality where nomination duly filled by Subscriber do not subsist – Rule also stipulates a mandate that, upon acquiring family nomination will become invalid – That being the case, even in view of fact that deceased had not made changes to nomination for GPF, earlier nomination cannot be held to be valid – Nomination itself would not give respondent no.1 a better claim over total GPF amount than appellant – GPF of deceased shall be distributed between appellant and respondent no.1 – Impugned Judgment set aside and order of CAT upheld as being in accordance with law. (Paras 7, 8, 9 and 10)
Facts of the case:
The family members i.e. wife and mother of the deceased, one Bolla Mohan are at odds in this appeal arising out of a judgment and order dated 11th February 2025 passed by High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 5756 of 2024, regarding release of General Provident Fund amount accrued in the course of employment of the deceased in Defence Accounts Department, Government of India.
Findings of Court:
It is a matter of record that the appellant has already received her share of GPF amount, as ordered by CAT. The remainder half of the money in question which currently stands deposited before the Registrar, High Court (Appellate side) shall be released in favour of Respondent No.1 herein. Counsel for the said respondent shall make an application within two weeks of this judgment before concerned Registrar to facilitate the release of the funds.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
administrative law
-
service law
-
service benefits
- general provident fund
-
service benefits
-
service law
Table of Contents
2. Whether a nomination for GPF automatically becomes invalid upon acquiring a family or requires formal written cancellation to be ineffective. (Para 6 )
3. The nomination form's condition regarding acquiring a family renders the nomination void, regardless of whether a formal cancellation procedure was followed by the subscriber. (Para 7 , 8 )
4. Nomination identifies the recipient for payment but does not confer absolute title; invalid nominations result in distribution among eligible family members in equal shares. (Para 7 , 9 )
5. Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside and CAT order upheld, directing equal distribution of GPF between the wife and mother. (Para 10 )
6. Does a GPF nomination become invalid if the subscriber acquires a family after the nomination is made?
Yes, if the nomination form stipulates that the nomination becomes invalid upon acquiring a family, it becomes void by function of that condition, even if the subscriber fails to formally alter or cancel the nomination in writing. (Para 7 , 8 )
7. Does a nomination confer absolute ownership or title over the funds to the nominee?
No, a nomination only indicates the person authorized to receive the amount to provide the payer a valid discharge. It does not confer beneficial interest or absolute title; the amount remains subject to the law of succession. (Para 9 )
8. How is the GPF amount distributed when a nomination is found to be invalid or non-existent?
According to Rule 33 of the GPF(CS) Rules and the Official Manual, if no valid nomination in favor of family members subsists, the amount is payable to all eligible family members in equal shares. (Para 7 )
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KAROL J.
Leave Granted.
2. The family members i.e. wife and mother of the deceased, one Bolla Mohan are at odds in this appeal arising out of a judgment and order dated 11th February 2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 5756 of 2024, regarding the release of General Provident Fund1[Hereinafter referred to as ‘GPF’] amount accrued in the course of employment of the deceased in the Defence Accounts Department, Government of India
3. When the deceased joined service on 29th February 2000, as per the applicable rules, he nominated the respondent no.1 herein (mother) as recipient of GPF, Central Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme2[Hereinafter referred to as ‘CGEGIS’] and the Death cum Retirement Gratuity3[Hereinafter referred to as ‘DCRG’]. On 20th June 2003, the deceased married the appellant herein and subsequently nominated her as recipient for CGEIS and DCRG only. The deceased died in service on 4th July 2021. It is an admitted position that the appellant herein has received all benefits arising from the employment of the deceased totaling to Rs.60 lakhs. On 9th September 2021, when she applied for the funds accumulated in the GPF to be released, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 refused the same, on account of respondent no.1 being the nominee on record.
4. The matter was pleaded before the Central Administrative Tribunal4[Hereinafter referred to as ‘CAT’], Mumbai Bench, Mumbai by the Appellant. Considering the applicable Rules, the General Provident Fund (Central Service) Rules, 19605[Hereinafter referred to as ‘GPF(CS) Rules’] and observing that Rule 33 thereof provides for the manner in which the funds in GPF are to be distributed upon the death of subscriber in cases where the nomination persists and, where it does not. The CAT noted that although initially, the nomination of Respondent No.1 was valid, it subsequently became invalid but was not changed accordingly by the deceased and thus has to be declared invalid by a competent authority. Since no nomination persisted at the time of death, it was held that the amount had to be released in equal shares to all members of the family. As such it was directed that the appellant and respondent no.1 both would receive half of the total amount.
5. On appeal, the High Court set aside findings of the CAT in the following terms:
“11. In the present case, ‘a subscriber’ is the Deceased and ‘specified nominee’ is the Petitioner (mother). From the above facts, it is clear that this is not a case of a specified nominee predeceasing the subscriber. The Petitioner (mother) is still alive. Therefore situation contemplated in Rule 5(5)(a) has not arisen and it will not apply. Rule 5(5)(b) provides that the nomination shall become invalid in the event of the happening of a contingency which is specified by the subscriber. In the present case, such a contingency is provided by the Deceased as “on acquiring family”. Rule 5(6) provides that on the occurrence of any event by reason of which nomination becomes invalid in pursuance of clause 5(5) (b) or proviso thereto, the subscriber shall send to the Accounts Officer a notice in writing canceling the nomination, together with a fresh nomination made in accordance with the provisions of this rule. Therefore in our considered opinion, combined reading of Rules 5(5) and 5(6) does not contemplate or provide for auto- cancellation of the nomination in the event of contingency provided. In the present case admittedly, the Deceased has neither sent a notice in writing canceling the Petitioner’s nomination nor fresh nomination is made in favour of Respondent No.1 in accordance with Rule 5 for GPF amount. Therefore it will not result in auto-cancellation of the Petitioner’s nomination on deceased acquiring family by virtue of getting married to Respondent No.1.
12. Rule 33 (i)(a) of the said Rules also operates clearly in favour of the Petitioner, she being a valid sole nominee. The provision of distribut
