The nomination made by a deceased Government servant under the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Family Benefit Fund Rules, 1974 does not confer any absolute right to the nominee to the exclusion of the other legal heirs.

1. The appellant is the widow of one Jayakkodi, who was a teacher in Gurukul School in Chinnroanur, Madurai District. He died on 10-12-80 leaving his mother, the respondent herein and the widow, the appellant herein as his heirs. The appellant, who got remarried to another person, claimed and received a sum of Rs. 10,000 from the Family Benefit Fund constituted under the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Family Benefit Fund Rules as the nominee of the deceased Jayakkodi.

The respondent had to resort to civil court for recovery of a half share. It was contested by the appellant that she was the only person entitled to claim the entirety of the amount as she was the nominee and under the rules governing Tamil Nadu Government Servants Family Benefit Fund, the mother could not claim any share as against the widow of the deceased. Both the Courts below rejected the contention of the appellant and relying upon the decision of this Court in M. V. Krishnamoorthy and other v. Tmt. Anandalakshmi and two others 1 granted decree as prayed for by the respondent.

2. In this second appeal, it is vehemently contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the rules governing Tamil Nadu Government Servants Family Benefit Fund, which will hereafter be referred to as the Rules, exclude the mother of the Government servant from taking a share in the Fund. It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the amount payable under the scheme is skin to a pension earned by the Government servant and is governed by the Pensions Act and rules framed thereunder, and the only person who will be entitled to the benefit of pension will be the wife and children and only in the absence of such persons, other heirs would come in. It is also urged by learned counsel that the provision in the rules to the effect that a nomination made in favour of any person would cease to be valid on the Government servant getting married and thereafter, the nomination could be only in favour of the wife, would show that the mother of the deceased could not claim any share therein. It is next urged that the mothers claim having been rejected by the District Educational Officer, she cannot maintain the suit before the Civil Court putting forward the same claim. Learned counsel relied upon some decisions under the Pensions Act in support of his contention

3. Before referring to the authorities cited by learned counsel for the appellant, it is necessary to refer to the relevant rules. The Rules came into force on 1st of January, 1974, Under rule 4 a monthly contribution of Rs. 10 shall be paid by the Government servant commencing from his pay for January, 1974 and it shall continue till the end of the Calendar month preceding the date of his superannuation. It is also provided therein that no contribution shall be made during the period of extra-ordinary leave and if a Government servant is on extraordinary leave for 15 days or more in a month, no contribution need be recovered. With regard to future entrants to Government service, contribution will commence from the beginning of the calendar month following the date of entry in service and shall continue till the end of the month proceeding the date of his superannuation. The deduction shall be made from the monthly pay bills. Rule 8 of the Rules provides for refund of contribution in the event of superannuation etc. The rule reads thus :—

“In the case of superannuation or if an employee demits office for any other reason, he shall be paid 80 per cent of the actual amount contributed by him till then at the rates indicated in Schedule I. The balance of 20 percent will be paid after verifying the period of extraordinary leave availed of by him. In the case of Government servants working purely under emergency provisions, the repayment will be based on the schedule as in other cases. For the purpose of refunding the contribution, the total amount payable should be notionally worked out from the beginning of