JUDGMENT :

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the letter dated 03.01.2017 whereby the petitioner has been directed to produce succession certificate for settlement of terminal benefits in respect of her deceased husband. Further prayer has been made for quashing the letter dated 27.02.2017/02.03.2017 issued by the Area Manager (NPD), FCI, Kolkata in pursuance of the letter dated 03.01.2017 issued by the Assistant General Manager (IR-L), For General Manager (R), Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’] whereby it was directed to obtain succession certificate from the petitioner to settle all dues to be paid in respect of her deceased husband. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to make payment of death-cum-terminal benefits of her husband, who died in harness, as well as to pay other consequential benefits, which is legally payable to her.

2. No one appears on behalf of the respondent No.2 despite valid service of notice upon her.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s husband, namely, Late Sambhu Singh was in service of the Corporation, who died in harness on 10.02.2014. The petitioner’s name being the wife was mentioned as nominee in the nomination form of his service record. Moreover, the medical card issued by the Corporation in favour of the petitioner bore her name and photograph together with the photograph of her deceased husband. The petitioner came to know that the respondent No.2 raised objection against release of terminal benefits of the deceased employee claiming herself to be his wife. Thereafter, the petitioner received letter dated 27.02.2017/02.03.2017 issued by the respondent No.1 whereby she was directed to produce succession certificate forthwith so that the claim of terminal benefits of the deceased employee could be settled and paid. The petitioner vide representation dated 18.02.2019 requested the respondent No.1-Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, Kolkata to release terminal benefits of the deceased employee in her favour as she was his legally married wife as well as his nominee. Subsequently, the petitioner approached various authorities of the respondent-Corporation on several occasions for settlement of terminal benefits of the deceased employee, however, no positive action was taken in this regard. It is well settled that the 'Nomination' indicates the hand which is authorized to receive the amount and only ‘a nominee’ can give a valid discharge. Even if it is presumed that the deceased husband had married another woman during continuation of marriage with the petitioner, the second marriage will be null and void in view of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Otherwise also, the petitioner being the nominee is the only authorised person to receive terminal benefits of the deceased employee.

4. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the petitioner is not the sole claimant of terminal benefits payable in respect of Late Sambhu Singh. Though the petitioner was shown as nominee in the service record including the medical card and the nomination form of the deceased employee, however, the respondent No.2 has also claimed herself to be his second wife. She has also claimed that the deceased employee was the biological father of her two sons and they are also entitled to get the terminal benefits to be paid by the Corporation in respect of the deceased employee. Even if nomination was made a ground by the petitioner for releasing the terminal benefits in her favour, the same could not be released as the respondent No.2 produced an Indemnity Bond executed between her and the petitioner notarised before the Notary Public at Alipore, District-South 24 Parganas on 07.09.2016 to the effect that both of them would distribute the terminal benefits in the ratio of 50:50. The respondent No.2 also submitted another affidavit sworn b