Harish Kumar, J.—This Court has heard Mr. Gyanendra Kumar Shukla, learned Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Jitendra Kumar, learned Advocate for the Canara Bank and Mr. Shekhar Singh, learned Advocate for respondent no.4.

2. The petitioners are aggrieved with the order contained in reference no. KC:HRM:807: 2021 dated 29.07.2021 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) whereby the claim of the petitioners for settlement of amount under National Pension Scheme was rejected by the respondent Bank on the ground that the deceased employee late Brajesh Mishra had given the names of the petitioners as a joint nominees prior to his marriage and after marriage there is no fresh nomination, thus the concerned respondents directed to produce succession certificate of deceased son of petitioner no.1 for settlement of the National Pension Scheme (NPS) amount, which is lying under the Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PFRDA’). The petitioners also sought a direction upon the respondent authorities to release the pensionary benefits-cum-terminal benefits so as to appropriate the housing loan taken by the deceased son of petitioner no.1.

3. The short facts, which led to the filing of the present writ petition are that the son of petitioner no.1, namely, Brajesh Mishra (deceased) was working as a Chief Manager at Kolkata, Circle Office since 28.04.2020 and passed away during service period on 20.01.2021. During the service, the deceased son of petitioner no.1 nominated the name of petitioner no.1, who happens to be his mother and petitioner no.2, his brother as joint nominee. On account of untimely demise of the son of petitioner no.1, she submitted an application with the Bank for settlement of death/terminal claim of her deceased son jointly with deceased wife (respondent no.4) on 21.03.2021. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner no.1 had revoked her earlier authorization tendered in favour of deceased wife for settlement of retiral and terminal dues vide Email dated 10.05.2021, and further vide letter dated 13.05.2021. The prayer of the petitioners was duly considered and the settlement amount was released by the Bank, but was appropriated and adjusted under the unsecured loan availed by the deceased employee and accordingly, the petitioners were informed vide letter dated 22.11.2021.

4. In the meanwhile, the petitioners submitted an application on behalf of late Brajesh Mishra to exit from National Pension System on 22.07.2021 due to sudden demise of the subscriber. However, the claim of the petitioners have been negated vide letter no. KC:HRM:807: 2021 dated 29.07.2021, which is put to challenge before this Court.

5. Referring to Sub-Clause V of Clause 31 of Gazette notification issued by the Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority Regulation, 2015, the impugned order states that a fresh nomination was to be made by the subscriber on his marriage and any nomination made before such marriage shall be deemed to be invalid; the petitioners, thus directed to submit a legal heir certificate to settle the NPS amount lying with PFRDA.

6. Assailing the impugned order, as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition, learned Advocate for the petitioners contended that the very aforesaid Regulation has been amended in the year 2017, which crystallized that at the time of exit of the subscriber on account of death, the nomination, if any existing in the records of subscriber with his or her employer for the purpose of receiving other terminal benefits shall be treated as nomination exercised for the purposes of receiving benefits under the NPS. The copy of the amended rule has been brought on record by way of Annexure- 5/1 to the writ petition. Learned Advocate for the petitioners would thus contended that despite the amendment in the above Regulation in the NPS, as noted above, the denial of the legitimate claim of the petitioners to receive the NPS amount is apparently suffers from illegalities of the h