( 1 ) THE petitioner is the sister of Mr. Gabriel Motha, an employee of the third respondent. He was a member of the Provident Fund and his account No. was KN/45/5323. He was a bachelor. He was looked after by his sister, the petitioner. He nominated the petitioner on 21-1-1998 in the prescribed form to receive the pension under the Employees' Pension scheme, 1995. Annexure-A is the nomination and declaration form. He died on 31-1-1998. It appears that the third respondent forwarded the said nomination and declaration form to the respondents 1 and 2 only on 23-6-1998. After the death of her brother, the petitioner filed an application for grant of pension under the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 as per Annexure-B. The request of the petitioner for pension has been rejected by respondents 1 and 2 on the ground that there was no valid nomination available in favour of the petitioner on the death of the member. As per Paragraph 61 (1) of the Employees' Provident Funds scheme, 1952, the nomination shall have effect to the extent that it is valid on the date on which it is received by the Commissioner. In the case of the petitioner as it was received only on 23-6-1998, 4 months after the death of her brother, she is not entitled to the pension. Aggrieved by the said order rejecting her request for pension, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking for quashing of annexure-D and directing the respondent to pay her family pension.

( 2 ) THE respondents 1 and 2 have filed a statement of objections contending that the petitioner's brother has not nominated any person, much less the petitioner, to receive the family pension. The petitioner's brother expired on 31-1-1998. Consequent upon his death, the petitioner was paid a sum of Rs. 91,748/- towards full and final settlement of the employees' provident fund contribution. In respect of the family pension, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. They have reiterated the stand made in the impugned order and therefore they contend that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for.

( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contends that as far as the deceased brother of the petitioner is concerned, he has nominated the petitioner as a nominee to receive the family pension before his death on 31-1-1998 as per Annexure-A. If there was a delay on the part of the 3rd respondent in forwarding the application form to respondents 1 and 2, that cannot be held against the petitioner to deprive her of the pension. All that the Paragraph 61 (6) of the Employees' Provident Funds scheme, 1952, provide is that a nomination or its modification shall take effect to the extent that it is valid on the date on which it is received by the Commissioner. On the day which was received by the respondents 1 and 2 it was valid nomination and the petitioner is entitled to the benefit flowing under the said nomination.

( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 contends that as the said nomination was received by the respondents 1 and 2 after the death of the brother of the petitioner, it cannot be said to be valid nomination. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the pension sought for.

( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent-employer contends that the petitioner is the sister of the deceased workman and the deceased workman has nominated the petitioner as his nominee to receive the pension as per Annexure-A on 21-1-1998 much prior to the date of his death. It is true, there is some delay in forwarding the application of the petitioner, but it should not take away of legitimate claim of the petitioner being satisfied by the respondents 1 and 2. Therefore, he submits that the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for.

( 6 ) THE undisputed facts which emerge from the material on record are that the deceased brother of the petitioner was a member of the employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1995. He died on 31-1-1998. On the certificat