By Court.-The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction for payment to him, the retiral benefits including the amount of G.P.F., gratuity, leave encashment, group insurance, etc. of one Gayatri Prasad Burnwal.

2. The brief facts shorn of unnecessary details are that, one Gayatri Prasad Burnwal, who was appointed on compassionate ground on 12.07.1994, died on 24.10.2008. She executed a Will in favour of the petitioner on 12.04.2007 and the said Will was probated on 10.10.2012. She had also submitted an application on 19.03.2007 in the office and filled in the GPF Form nominating the petitioner in presence of two witnesses namely, Suresh Singh, Junior Field Investigator and Anil Dubey, B.S.S. In these facts, the petitioner has claimed that the retiral dues of said Gayatri Prasad Burnwal should be given to him.

3. A counter-affidavit has been filed denying the claim of the petitioner on the ground that, one Pratima Kumari, who was the adopted daughter of the said Gayatri Prasad Burnwal, has also raised a similar claim.

4. Heard counsel for both the parties and perused the documents on record.

5. Mr. K.P. Deo, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, since the name of the petitioner was nominated by the deceased employee namely, Gayatri Prasad Burnwal in the GPF Form and she executed a Will in favour of the petitioner wherein also it has been specifically stated that the petitioner is nominated for receiving the retiral benefits of the said Gayatri Prasad Burnwal and since, the said Will has been probated by a competent Court of law therefore, the petitioner is entitled for payment of the retiral dues of the Gayatri Prasad Burnwal, to him.

6. Per contra, Mr. A.K. Mishra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State has submitted that, since there is a dispute with respect to the legal heir of the deceased employee, the claim of the petitioner was not finalised. He has further submitted that even the nomination in favour of the petitioner in the GPF Form is suspicious. The alleged Will though has been probated, one Pratima Kumari, who claimed herself the adopted daughter of the deceased employee, was never noticed in the probate proceeding and therefore, the claim of the petitioner cannot be accepted.

7. Mr. Sudarshan Shrivastava, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.7 has submitted that, 'nomination' of a person only indicates the hand which will receive the amount and it does not confer any right in the person so nominated, to claim ownership of the amount. The learned counsel has referred to judgments reported in (1984) 1 SCC 424 and (1991) 1 SCC 725.

8. Having considered the rival submissions, I am of the opinion that the short point involved in this case is, “what is the effect of nomination of the petitioner to receive the retiral benefits?”

9. The word “nomination” has been defined in the Black's Law Dictionary as

“1. The act of proposing a person for election or appointment.

2. The act of naming or designating a person for an office, membership, award, or like title or status.”

In the Halsbury's Law Dictionary also, the word “nomination and payment out on death” has been discussed as under:

189. “Nomination and payment out on death: A holder of stock registered on the National Savings Stock Register, if he was a holder who has attained the age of 16, had power to make a nomination before 1 May 1981 directing that, on his death, his interest in any stock then held by him and registered in his name should devolve on the persons specified, and in the portions or fractions specified, in the nomination. Where, on the death of the holder of any stock so registered, any payment is made in accordance with the law of the place where the holder resided at the date of his death, the payment is to be deemed to have been duly made unless, before the payment was made, the Director of Savings had been notified in writing that the holder was at that time domiciled elsew