Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 6162
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, A
Chandro – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A./1069/2023 | M.A./1321/2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Manoj Kr. Srivastava, Mr. Anil Giri
For the Respondents: Shri Aditya Singh Deshwal
Nomination in retirement benefits does not confer absolute ownership; it mandates benefits be received by the nominee while ownership is determined by succession laws.
Headnote:(A) Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - Section 6(4) - CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 - Nomination validity - Applicant, as nominee, entitled to receive retirement benefits except family pension of deceased son - Nomination made before marriage deemed invalid due to subsequent marriage - Retirement benefits to be apportioned post-succession determination. (Paras 5.6, 5.7)
(B) Nomination concept - Nomination does not confer absolute ownership; it ensures expeditious receipt of benefits, which must be divided among legal heirs after succession determination. (Paras 5.7)
Facts of the case:
The applicant's son, a government employee, died without changing his nominee after marriage, leading to a dispute over retirement benefits. The applicant claims entitlement based on nomination, while respondents argue it is invalid due to the deceased's marriage.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled the applicant may receive retirement benefits except family pension, pending succession determination.
Issues: Whether the nomination remains valid post-marriage and the implications for retirement benefits distribution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while the nominee is entitled to receive benefits, ownership must be determined according to succession laws.
Result: Original Application disposed of, directing payment of retirement benefits to the nominee with conditions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claim for retirement benefits based on nomination. (Para 2) |
| 2. validity of nomination under gratuity act. (Para 3) |
| 3. nominee's rights vs. legal heirs' rights. (Para 4) |
| 4. court's determination on benefits distribution. (Para 5) |
| 5. final order on retirement benefits and family pension. (Para 6) |
ORDER
Hon’ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
The present OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following reliefs:
“8.(a) Declare the action of the respondents in not granting Gratuity, GPF, Family pension, leave encashment, CGEIS balance, as arbitrary and illegal.
(b) To direct the respondents to release the Gratuity, GPF, family pension, leave encashment, CGEIS balance, to the applicant, w.e.f. the date of death of her son, alongwith arrears and interest @ 12% P.A.
(c) To allow the O.A. with costs.
(d) To pass any further orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. Factual matrix
2.1 The son of the present applicant namely Shri Prakash initially joined as a Mazdoor in Military Engineering Service (MES) of Defence Ministry. Shri Prakash succumbed to Pancreatic disease on 4.05.2020. The applicant claims that she had submitted a representation dated 18.09.2020 for release of retirement benefits of her deceased son Shri Prakash. The respondents have not yet given any response to the representation submitted by the applicant. Being aggrieved, she has filed the present OA seeking the aforementioned reliefs.
2.2 Learned counsel for the applicant states that it is admitted fact that the applicant is the nomine in the official records for the purpose of receiving DCRG, family pension, CGEGIS benefits and GPF savings. This has not been denied by the respondents in their counter affidavit. In preliminary submissions in paragraph 4, they have admitted that the applicant i.e. the mother of the deceased Shri Prakash is the nominee to receive the aforementioned benefits. As the nominee, she is entitled to receive the aforementioned benefits. However, the respondents have denied the same to her. The learned counsel emphasizes that as there is a proper nomination, the respondents are bound to release the retirement benefits to the nominee instead of withholding the same.
2.3 In support of the applicant’s claim, the learned counsel for the applicant relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Indrani Wahi Vs. Registrar of Cooperative Societies and others, (2016) 6 SCC 440, paragraph 17 whereof reads as follows:
“17. Having perused the aforesaid provisions, there can be no doubt, that where a member of a cooperative society nominates a person in consonance with the provisions of the Rules, on the death of such member, the cooperative society is mandated to transfer all the share or interest of such member in the name of the nominee. The above interpretation of Section 79, at our hands, also emerges from Section 80(1)(a) which postulates, that the share or interest of a member of the society, “on his death” shall be transferred to a person “nominated under Section 79”. It is also essential to notice, that the rights of others on account of an inheritance or succession is a subservient right. Only if a member had not exercised the right of nomination under Section 79, then and then alone, the existing share or interest of the member would devolve by way of succession or inheritance. The heading of Section 80 - “Disposal of deceased member's share of interest” lends further credence to the above interpretation.”
3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents states that nomination, as pleaded by the applicant and substantiated by the learned counsel for the applicant in his averments, is not a valid nomination. He referred to sub-section 4 of Section 6 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which reads as follows:
“6. Nomination –
..........
(4) If at the time of making a nomination the employee has no family, the nomination may be made in favour of any person or persons
