SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MR. MANOJ MISRA, MR. MANMOHAN, JJ
THE UNION OF INDIA & ANR. – Appellant
Versus
PARESH CHANDRA MONDAL – Respondent
PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) Diary No . 71438 /2025 | WPCT No.199/2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conclusion dismissing the special leave petition. (Para 1) |
| 2. challenge against the dismissal of writ petition based on gpf rules. (Para 2) |
O R D E R
1. Delay condoned.
2. The present Special Leave Petition has been filed challenging the judgement dated 04th April 2025 passed by the Calcutta High Court in WPCT 199 of 2024, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioners (including the Union of Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by KAVITA PAHUJA Date: 202I6.01n.12dia) challenging the Order dated 06th October 2023 passed by Reason:
the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata in OA. No 1261 of
2022, was dismissed. It is pertinent to mention that the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata, vide its order dated 06th October 2023, has allowed the application filed by the respondent seeking release of the amounts lying in the General Provident Fund (“GPF”) of his deceased brother.
3. Both the High Court as well as the Tribunal have decided the petitions in favour of the respondent on the ground that Rule 33(ii) of General Provident Fund (Central Service) Rules, 1960 (“the Rules, 1960”) entitles the respondent as the only valid nominee in respect of his brother’s GPF account to receive the amounts lying in the Fund.
4. Learned Additional Solicitor General (‘ASG’) appearing for the petitioners states that some of the nephews of the deceased have raised objections dated 12th October 2022 with respect to the respondent’s claim over the amounts lying in the GPF account of his deceased brother. According to learned ASG, even when there is a valid nomination in accordance with the Rules, 1960, the amounts cannot be released to the nominee in view of Section 4 (1)(c)(i) of the Provident Fund Act, 1925 (“the Act, 1925”), as it stipulates that in case the amount standing in the name of the depositor is above Rs. 5,000/-, then the said amount would be released to the nominee only upon production of a succession certificate or probate or letters of administration. He submits that the High Court as well as Tribunal have erroneously given primacy to Rule 33 (ii) of Rules 1960 over the statutory provisions and failed to appreciate that Sections 4 (1)(b) and Section 4 (1)(c)(i) of the Act, 1925 would have an overriding effect over the Rules, 1960 where the amount in the account exceeds Rs.5,000/-. The relevant portion of Section 4 and Rule 33 (ii) are reproduced hereinbelow:-
“The provident Funds Act, 1925:
4.Provisions regarding re-payments.—……
(b) if the whole sum or balance, as the case may be, does not exceed five thousand rupees, pay the same, or any part thereof, which is not payable under clause (1), to any person nominated to receive it under the rules of the Fund, or, if no person is so nominated, to any person appearing to him to be otherwise entitled to receive it; or (c) in the case of any sum or balance, or any part thereof, which is not payable to any person under clause (a) or clause (b) pay the same,–
(i) to any person nominated to receive it under the rules of the Fund, on production by such person of probate or letters of administration evidencing the grant to him of administration to the estate of the deceased or a certificate granted under the Succession Certificate Act, 1889 (7 of 1889), or under the Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827 , entitling the holder thereof to receive payment of such sum, balance or part, or (ii) where no person is so nominated, to any person who produces such probate, letters or certificate:
……
The General Provident Fund (Central Services) Rules, 1960 Rule 33 – Procedure on Death of a Subscriber ….
(ii) When the subscriber leaves no family, if a nomination made by him in accordance with the provisions of Rule 5 in favour of any person or persons subsists, the amount standing to his credit in the Fund or the part thereof to which the nomination relates, shall become payable to his nominee or nominees in the proportion specified in the nomination.”
5. Additionally, he states that though the
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.