The nominee of a deceased employee is entitled to receive death-cum-retirement gratuity as per valid nomination, regardless of wrongful disbursement to another party.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Nitin Jamdar, J):

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The Respondents waive service. Taken up for disposal.

2. Respondent No. 1 is the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu; Respondent No. 2 is Principal of the Government Industrial Training Institute, the employer of the Petitioner's mother.

3. The Petitioner's mother-the Late Meena J. Patel, worked as an Upper Divisional Clerk in the Union Territory Administration at the Government Industrial Training Institute. She expired on 14 November 2016. Late Meena Patel had filed a nomination for death-cum-retirement gratuity on 13 January 1999 under Rule 53(1) of the Central Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (for short “the 1972 Rules”) as per Form 1.

4. Late Meena J. Patel had nominated the Petitioner to succeed her for the death-cum-retirement gratuity. The nomination was in favour of the Petitioner, but since he was 8 years old, she had referred to the name of her father, J. N. Rohit, as a second nominee as a guardian of the Petitioner. Entry was accordingly taken in the service book of the Late Meena J. Patel. After the death of the Petitioner's father, the Petitioner's mother remarried Mr. Prakash V. Bhavsar on 28 November 2012.

5. Since the Petitioner did not receive an amount from the Respondent-Administration upon the death of his mother, the Petitioner, on 17 October 2018, filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking details of the amount disbursed. Respondent No. 2 replied on 22 November 2018, where the Petitioner found out that the amount of death-cum-retirement gratuity was disbursed to Mr. Prakash Bhavsar. The Petitioner made various complaints to the Respondent No.2.

6. Upon inquiry, it was revealed that the office of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had disbursed the amount of death-cum-retirement gratuity to Mr Prakash Bhavsar erroneously. The Petitioner filed various complaints against Mr Prakash Bhavsar, even against the officers of the Union Territory, for misappropriating the amount due to the Petitioner. The Petitioner made these complaints from the year 2020 onwards.

7. Since no efforts were being made to pay the amount to the Petitioner, who was admittedly the rightful person to receive it, the Petitioner has filed the present Petition to direct the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to pay the amount of death-cum-retirement gratuity to the Petitioner.

8. The reply affidavit is filed on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

9. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

10. The following factual position is admitted. The Petitioner's mother who expired, being an employee of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was entitled to the death-cum-retirement gratuity. Late Meena Patel, as per Rule 53 of the 1972 Rules, had made a nomination in favour of the Petitioner, through his grandfather since the Petitioner was a minor then. The death-cum-retirement gratuity has been paid to Mr. Prakash Bhavsar, who was not entitled to receive it. The payment to Mr Prakash Bhavsar is incorrect and should have been made to the Petitioner. Despite this admitted position, the Petitioner, the rightful nominee, has not received the death-cum-retirement gratuity. To complicate matters further, Mr. Prakash Bhavsar is no longer there.

11. Instead of addressing the issue of the Petitioner's right to receive the amount, the reply affidavit filed by the Respondent sought to deflect the inquiry in a different direction. It is contended that the amount which was disbursed wrongfully to Mr. Prakash Bhavsar is being recovered and once the recovery is made the amount will be paid to the Petitioner. This stand is reiterated by learned Counsel for the Respondent-Union Territory in his oral submissions. Therefore, even after accepting that the amount has been wrongfully given to Mr Prakash Bhavsar and not to the Petitioner, according to the Respondents, the Petitioner can get the amount only after it is recovered from Mr Prakash Bhavsar or his estate.