Nominee under pension rules is trustee for legal heirs; cannot appropriate full retiral benefits excluding other heirs.

ORDER

Applicants are the widow and children of late K.K.Santhosh Kumar, who was a Senior Telecom Operating Assistant in the BSNL. He had joined service in the erstwhile Telecommunication Department on 05.12.1994. He had married the 1^st applicant on 25.04.1997 and in the relationship two male children, applicants 2 and 3, were born. While so, after putting in nearly 23 years of service, he passed away on 17.10.2017. The 4^th respondent is the mother of late Santhosh Kumar. The applicants are aggrieved by Annexure-A10 order issued by the 2^nd respondent, by which entire gratuity amount of Rs.12,45,864/- was released to the 4^th respondent, which, according to the applicants, is illegal and against Rule 53(4) of the CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972. So, the applicants seek to quash Annexure-A10 order by which sum of Rs.12,45,864/- towards DCRG was released to the 4^th respondent, to direct the respondents 1 and 3 to sanction and disburse such an amount as gratuity to the applicants as per the CCS (Pension) Rules within a stipulated time, for declaring that the 4^th respondent is not entitled to get so much amount since nomination of the 4^th respondent became invalid as per Rule 53(4) of the CCS (Pension) Rules and to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to collect the gratuity amount sanctioned to the 4^th respondent under Annexure-A10 and to disburse to the applicants within a stipulated period of time.

2. It is evident from the averments of the applicants that a matrimonial dispute was pending between the 1^st applicant and the said Santhosh Kumar. Santosh Kumar had moved the Family Court, Kollam with Original Petition No.789/2016 seeking divorce and had passed away during the pendency of the O.A. According to the applicants, they are entitled to get the retiral benefits of Santhosh Kumar. Citing Annexure- A3 communication issued by the 2^nd respondent it is pointed out that such a right of the applicants has been recognised by the respondents, still the amount was disbursed to the 4^th respondent to the total prejudice to the applicants.

3. According to them, in the light of Annexure-A3 communication dated 19.02.2018, it must be taken that the respondents are aware of the legal position that the amount should not have been disbursed to the 4^th respondent, mother, alone. Moreover, referring to Rule 53(4) of CCS (Pension) Rules, it has been stated that after acquiring a family by way of marriage, nomination, if any, given at the initial stage of entry in service becomes invalid and therefore any nomination, if at all made in favour of the 4^th respondent mother is invalid and on that basis the respondents are not justified in releasing the entire amount to the 4^th respondent. Moreover, basing on the decisions in Sarbati Devi and another v. Usha Devi [AIR 1984 SC 346] and Vishin N Khanchandani and another v. Vidya Lachmandas Khanchandani and another [(2006) 6 SCC 724], which has been followed in K.K.Alamelu v. L.Pushpakala and others [(2015) 4 KHC 240], it is certain that if the nominee is not the sole legal representative or the nominee is given a right to collect the amount, he can only collect the amount for and on behalf of the legal representatives who will have to disburse the amount to the legal representatives. So, the applicants seek the above stated reliefs since the amount was disbursed to the 4^th respondent exclusively, which was illegal.

4. Respondents 1 and 2 opposed the application. According to them, marriage between the 1^st applicant and Santosh Kumar was hel