IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI

th

ON THE 19 OF JANUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 749 of 2024 SMT. KUNTHI RAWAT AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Girija Shankar Sharma - learned counsel for the petitioners.

Shri Brij Mohan Patel - learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State.

ORDER

1. The petitioners have filed this petition challenging communication dated

29/12/2023 (Annexure- P/1), whereby declining to release the retiral dues of Late Shri Ramesh Chandra Rawat, the petitioners have been asked to submit the succession certificate.

2. It is gathered from the records that Late Shri Ramesh Chandra Rawat was working as Assistant Teacher in the School Education Department and was posted at Primary School Sabhari, District- Gwalior. Shri Rawat was unmarried and expired on 31/03/2023.

3. The petitioner no.1 is the wife of younger brother of Late Shri Ramesh Chandra Rawat while petitioner no.2 & 3 are sons of petitioner no.1. After the death of Ramesh Chandra Rawat, the petitioners made an application to the respondent department for releasing of retiral dues in their favour, however, by impugned communication, they have been asked to obtain succession certificate.

4. The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that since the petitioners have been nominated by deceased employee, they are entitled to receive the amount in question. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State submitted that late Ramesh Chandra Rawat has three brothers. The claim has also been lodged by other brothers of the deceased employee for payment of retiral dues. He submitted that since there is dispute, the petitioners have been asked to obtain the succession certificate from competent court.

5. Considered the arguments and perused the record.

6. The petitioners have based their claim for receiving retiral dues of the deceased- Ramesh Chandra Rawat based upon the nomination made by him in their favour during his lifetime. In support of their submission, they have filed document as Annexure-P/2. Perusal of this document shows that deceased employee has made nomination in favour of petitioners in relation to GPF, GIS, FBF, Family Pension and CRG.

7. The nomination is made by an employee so as to avoid any complication in payment of retiral dues after his death. In the instant case, the deceased employee has made nomination in favour of petitioners as is prima facie evident from document filed as Annexure P/2. Even though specific averment in this regard has been made in the writ petition, there is no rebuttal to the averments in the reply filed by the respondents. The petitioners are, thus, entitled to receive the amount of retiral dues based upon the nomination made by the deceased employee.

8. From the document filed as Annexure P/2, it is seen that nomination in favour of petitioner no.1 has been made in relation to family pension also. However, the payment of family pension is governed by the provisions of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 and, therefore, no nomination could have been made by deceased employee in favour of a person who is otherwise not entitled to family pension under the Rules. Therefore, nomination made in favour of petitioner no.1 so far as it relates to family pension, is not acceptable. She is not entitled to family pension under the Rules of 1976.

9. Considering the aforesaid, this petition is disposed off directing respondent no.2 to take necessary steps for release of of retiral dues in favour of the petitioner in view of the nomination made by the deceased employee in their favour. It is, however, clarified that respondent no.2 shall verify the authenticity and genuineness of the nomination made in favour of the petitioners before release of the amount. It is also held that petitioner no.1 is not entitled to family pension. It is also clarified that other legal heirs of the deceased employee, if has any