Nomination does not determine legal entitlement to retiral benefits; legal heirs are entitled to claim benefits under succession law irrespective of nomination.

ORDER :

DINESH MEHTA, J.

1. The present writ petition has been preferred for the following reliefs:-

“(i) The impugned order/letter dated 23.08.22 (Anx.5) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) The respondents may kindly be directed to release all the retiral benefits of Late Smt. Shankuntala Bhati, including pensionary benefits, gratuity, earned leave encashment, provident fund, arrears and all other admissible benefits to the petitioner, alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.

(iii) Any other relief to which the petitioner is entitled, may be granted in his favour.

(iv) The writ petition may be allowed with costs.”

2. Mr. Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is daughter of Smt. Shankuntala Bhati, who had passed away on 09.05.2021 while in service.

3. Learned counsel submitted that when the petitioner moved an application for disbursement of the amount of earned leave, GPF, Provident Fund and other arrears, the respondent No.5 rejected petitioner’s application by way of communication dated 23.08.2022 inter-alia observing that the deceased government servant has not made any nomination.

4. Learned counsel argued that the fact that the petitioner is daughter of deceased government servant is not in dispute and therefore, she and all other legal representatives are entitled to the benefits as available to them in general law, including the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

5. Mr. Chundawat, learned counsel for the respondents could not defend the communication dated 23.08.2022 so far as requirement of nomination is concerned. He nevertheless submitted that the petitioner and all other legal representatives may furnish a proper application/prescribed form for disbursement of the amount.

6. On perusal of the communication dated 23.08.2022, this Court finds that the sole reason given for rejection is that the deceased government servant had not made any nomination in petitioner’s favour.

7. According to this Court, nomination is simply indicative of a person who would withdraw the amount lying in such account on behalf of other legal representatives/heirs. Nomination per-se does not decide the legal entitlements and therefore, in absence of nomination, the employer cannot refuse to disburse the amount to the petitioner and defeat the law of succession, when legal heirs are entitled to claim estate of deceased.

8. Nomination merely puts the nominee in the shoes of the deceased government servant after his death and clothes him with power to withdraw the amount lying in such account. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that nominee is the owner of the money lying in the account. The money receivable by the nominee forms part of the estate of deceased and devolve according to governing rule of succession. This observation is further fortified by the view taken by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Chander Talwar & Anr. Vs. Devender Kumar Talwar & Anr., reported in 2010 (10) SCC 671 and in the case of Smt. Sarabati Devi & Anr. Vs. Smt. Usha Devi, reported in 1984 (1) SCC 424.

9. The employer can, at best, ask for an affidavit or other evidence in relation to claimant’s entitlement on the basis of inheritance.

10. The present writ petition is, therefore, allowed.

11. The respondents are directed to disburse the amount lying in credit of the deceased government employee or emanating from the service she had rendered, to the petitioner or any other legal representatives in case duly filled-in prescribed form is furnished within a period of four weeks from today.

12. The stay application and any other interlocutory applications stand disposed of accordingly.