Nominee status does not confer ownership of benefits; they are subject to distribution among legal heirs per succession law.

JUDGMENT

1. By way of the present petition the Petitioner seeks directions to Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 to grant compassionate appointment to the Petitioner as well as to release part share of the Gratuity, pension and other terminal dues as well as Insurance fund in her favour which according to her accrues to the Petitioner on the demise of her husband.

2. Petitioner was married to Late Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (hereinafter referred to as Manoj) on 11.06.2015 as per Hindu Rites. The marriage took place after the death of the 1st wife of Manoj, namely, Late Neelam Singh (hereinafter referred to as Neelam), who died on 16.07.2009. Neelam is survived by a daughter namely Ms. Aditi Singh who was born on 16.01.2003 and is a minor. Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are the father and mother of Manoj and the minor daughter has been impleaded as Respondent No. 3. Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 are the official Respondents i.e. ONGC, the ex-employer of Manoj.

3. It is an undisputed fact that Manoj was working with ONGC and at the time of his untimely demise he was working as Superintendent Engineer (Mechanical) and that he died of Brain Tumor for which he was undergoing treatment at a hospital in Gurgaon.

4. Petitioner made a representation on 11.04.2017 for release of Gratuity, pension and other terminal dues. Getting no response, she sent another application in September, 2017, followed by a reminder on 07.03.2018. Vide the impugned order dated 02.04.2018 ONGC communicated to the Petitioner the rejection of her representations on the ground that the terminal dues of Manoj had been released as per the nomination Forms filled by him in the year 2009 & 2017 and that being an employer, ONGC could not enter into inter-se family disputes of the deceased employee.

5. Contention of learned counsel for the Petitioner is that the Petitioner is one of the Class-I legal heir of Manoj. She was legally wedded to him and the marriage certificate and the requisite information was admittedly available in the records of the ONGC. Petitioner is thus entitled and eligible for compassionate appointment. Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are senior citizens and Respondent No. 3 is a minor and hence the Petitioner is the only legal heir entitled to be given a job after the death of her husband. Petitioner is in great financial difficulty without any source of livelihood.

6. It is further contended that being the widow of Manoj and the legal heir, ONGC is bound to release Gratuity and other retiral benefits to the Petitioner including the insurance fund of CSSS as Manoj was the employee of ONGC and died while in service, on account of a medical ailment. Counsel fairly contends that the Petitioner is not demanding that the entire benefits should be disbursed to her, but seeks a direction that share due to her by virtue of being a Class-I heir be released to her. It is contended that the Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 are illegally denying the benefits on the ground that the benefits have to be disbursed in accordance with nomination made by Manoj. The argument is that nominee is only entitled to receive an amount and is not the absolute owner of the fund. The nominee is thus duty bound to distribute and share the amount wit