K.K. Mandal, J.-The pe1itioner, being the father of the deceased employee of the State Government, has filed the present writ petition challenging the stand of the respondents contained in letter bearing memo no. 704 dated 9.11.2009 (A.nnexure-1) whereby the Respondent-Executive Engineer, Construction Division No.1, Department of Building Construction, Patna, directed the petitioner as well as respondent no. 5 to obtain appropriate declaration/succession certificate from the court of competent jurisdiction enabling the respondents to pay the GPF accumulation of the deceased employee. Petitioner has also prayed for a direction on the respondents to pay the aforesaid dues in his favour on the strength of nomination made in his favour by the deceased employee.

2. Relevant facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as under:-

Late Binod Kumar son of the writ petitioner, was working as Estimator (Junior Engineer) in the office of the Executive Engineer, Construction Division No.1, Building Construction Department, Patna. While working as such, he was proceeded against departmentally and was terminated from service vide order no. 63 dated 18.3.2008 on the charge that while his spouse (respondent no. 5) was alive, he married with another lady called Rashmi Gupta. Soon after his dismissal from service the employee died on 29.4.2009. While in service and before marrying with respondent no. 5, the employee had filed a nomination in appropriate format in favour of the writ petitioner on 10.3.2008 (Annexure-3) enabling him to receive the accumulation under the said fund. There is no controversy that after having made such nomination in favour of his father (the writ petitioner), the deceased employee married with respondent no. 5 and thus acquired family in terms of Rule 2(c) of the Bihar General Provident Fund Rules, 1948 (for short 'the GPF Rules'). The deceased employee even after his marriage with respondent no. 5 did not amend/alter or cancel the nomination made earlier in favour of the writ petitioner. The marriage with respondent no. 5 soon generated litigation(s) between the said employee and respondent no. 5 inasmuch as few proceedings were filed by the deceased employee seeking decree of divorce. The deceased employee, however, failed to get the desired relief by the trial court as well as this Court. After the death of the employee, both the father (writ petitioner) as well as respondent no. 5 laid claim for payment of GPF accumulation of the deceased employee in their respective favour. By the impugned order Respondent State directed both of them to obtain appropriate declaration/succession certificate in respect of the GPF amount enabling the respondents to pay the same. During the pendency of the application, the respondents sought legal opinion where after by a communication dated 23.2.2010 (Annexure-5) decided to release the GPF amount in favour of respondent no. 5 conditionally. The said stand of the Respondent-State was challenged by the writ petitioner by filing an interlocutory application being I.A. No. 2232 of 2010. This Court, by an order dated 15.3.2010, directed that the decision taken by the respondents to pay the GPF amount in favour of respondent no. 5 (Annexures-5 and 5/A of I.A. No. 2232 of 2010) shall remain in abeyance till further orders.

4. A counter affidavit on behalf of respondent no. 2 and a rejoinder thereto on behalf of respondent no. 5 have been filed.

5. I heard Shri Jai Shankar Barnwal, counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ganpati Trivedi appearing for respondent no. 5 and Mr. P.K. Verma, AAG-5 for the State at length.

6. Mr. Barnwal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner; being the father of the deceased employee, was nominated by him to receive the amount/accumulation under the head GPF of the deceased employee in terms of Rule 8(3) of the GPF Rules and the same having not been cancelled and the employee having not nominated respondent no. 5 as nominee to receive the