Narain Dutt vs Jawaharlal Nehru University
1997 Latest Caselaw 882 Del

JUDGMENT

Arun Kumar, J.

(1) The petitioner is employed in the Jawaharlal Nehru University, respondent herein. As an employee of the University, the petitioner has been maintaining various accounts, i.e., Group Insurance, G.P.F. Provident Fund etc. According to the petitioner he had nominated his wife Smt. Hira Devi in all the said accounts. The petitioner wanted to change the nomination by substituting the name of Kumari Champa, his grand-daughter (son's daughter) in place of his wife Smt Hira Devi. The reason given for this is that his wife Hira Devi had been living separately from the petitioner and there was litigation between the two. There was a Court order passed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure under which an amount of Rs. 250.00 per month was being deducted from his salary by the University and paid to his wife Smt. Hira Devi as maintenance. The petitioner has stated that Smt. Hira Devu is not maintaining any relations with the petitioner for a long time and is residing in a village in district Nainital, U.P. It is further the case of the petitioner that his only son has also separated from him and is not maintaining any relationship with the petitioner. The wife and daughter of his only son are said to be staying with the petitioner and the petitioner has to look after them. They are both said to be totally dependent on the petitioner. The petitioner is also said to have executed a Will dated 1st February, 1994 in favour of his grand-daughter Kumari Champa bequeathing all his entitlements and assets in favour of the said Kumari Champa. A copy of the Will has been annexed with the writ petition.

(2) In view of the above facts, the petitioner applied for changing the nomination in favour of Kumari Champa in place of his wife Smt. Hira Devi. The University authorities did not accede to the request of the petitioner which has ultimately led to the filing of the present writ petition.

(3) In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the University, the stand of the University is that in view of the relevant rules, the said request of the petitioner could not be acceded to. The relevant rule has been reproduced in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the University and is as under :- (i) Nomination For Death//retirement Gratuity

(4) Every Govt. Servant on his initial appointment should make a nomination in the prescribed form conferring on one or more persons the right to receive the Death Gratuity in the event of his death, while in service or after retirement before receiving the amount of Retirement Gratuity. If at the time of making the nomination, the Government servant has a family, the nomination shall be in favour of one or more members of his family.

(5) For this purpose `family', means I)Wife or wives including judicially separated wife or wives in the case of male Government servant. ii) husband, including judicially separated husband, in the case of a female Government servant. iii) sons including steps sons and adopted sons iv) unmarried daughters including step daughters and adopted daughters. v) widowed daughters including step daughters and adopted daughters. vi) Father ) including adoptive parents in the case of individuals whose personal law permits. vii) Mother ) adopting. viii) brothers below the age of eighteen years including step brothers. ix) unmarried sisters and widowed sisters including step sisters. x) married daughters, and xi) children of a pre-deceased son.

(6) A Govt. servant who has no `family' at the time of making the nomination may nominate any person or persons, or a body of individuals, whether incorporated or not. When the Government servant acquires a family member subsequently the nomination made in favour of any person (s)/body other than a member of his family shall become invalid automatically, and the Government servant has to furnish a fresh nomination in favour of a member of his family.

(7) On the basis of the above rule, the University has stated :-    "wife or wives or judicially separated wife or wives are covered under family. The children of a pre deceased son are also covered under the family, but in this case his son is alive and the petitioner wants to nominate his grand-daughter which is not covered under the rule."  

(8) Regarding nomination for G.P.F. etc., the relevant rule has been quoted as under: (ii) Nomination For General Provident Fund/contributory Provident Fund/central Government Employee's Group Insurance Scheme. 
 

(9) A Government servant, at the time of joining the General Provident Fund/Contributory Provident Fund, shall sent to the Accounts Officer through the Head of his Office a nomination in the prescribed form conferring on one or more persons the right to receive the amount that may stand to his credit in the fund in the event of his death, before that amount has become payable or having become payable has not been paid. Similarly a Government servant at the time of becoming a member of the Central Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme, 1980, shall furnish to his Head of Office a nomination in the prescribed form conferring on one or more persons the right to receive the benefits payable under the scheme in the event of his death.

(10) A Government servant who has a `family' at the time of making the nomination shall make such nomination only in favour of a member or members of his family. `Family' for this purpose means-- "In the case of male subscriber, the wife or wives, parents, children, minor brothers, unmarried sisters, deceased son's widow and children, and where no parents of the subscriber is alive, a paternal grandparent."

(11) Provided that if a subscriber proves that his wife has been judicially separated from him or has ceased under the customary law of the community to which she belongs to be entitled to maintenance she shall henceforth be deemed to be no longer a member of the subscriber's family unless the subscriber subsequently intimates in writing to the Accounts Officer that she shall continue to be so regarded."

(12) According to the petitioner his wife is living separately from his for years and is also getting maintenance @ Rs. 250.00 per month in pursuance of a Court order. This obviously is the reason for which the petitioner does not want to continue the various nominations in favour of his wife. Now the question is can he nominate his grand-daughter? According to the learned counsel appearing for the University, a grand-daughter, i.e., son's daughter does not fall in the categories of relations enumerated in the above quoted rules and, therefore, request of the petitioner cannot be acceded to.

(13) I have perused the relevant rules and have given my careful consideration to the entire aspect. The list of relations given in the rules cannot be said to be exhaustive. The rules do not cater to a situation like the present one. The wife and the only son of the petitioner have fallen out from him and are living separately since long and are also not maintaining any relationship with the petitioner. On the other hand the burden of maintaining the wife and the daughter of his only son has fallen on the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner wants to change the nomination in favour of his only grand-daughter. Even though the relevant rules do not mention a grand-daughter, I see no reason to exclude the grand-daughter particularly in the facts which have unfolded in the present case. The relevant rule includes daughters, unmarried daughters, married daughters, sisters, step sisters, widowed daughters, step daughters, adopted daughters, sons including step sons and adopted sons, parents even adoptive parents, children of the pre-deceased son etc. This shows the intention of the rule. All possible close relations are sought to be covered. When children of a pre-deceased son are included, I see no reason why children of a son who has separated from the father and who does not care for his father should not be included. The rule has to be interpreted in order to advance the object of the rule rather than to thwart its object. The fact cannot be lost sight of that just as a person is free to make's Will of his self acquired assets in favour of any one he chooses, in matters of nominations for purposes of benefit of assets after the death of a person concerned, the wishes of person ought to be respected. The employment benefits, as is the case here, belong to the petitioner and he should not be denied his say in the matter of devolution of the benefits on his death.

(14) Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the respondent University is directed to change all the nominations in favour of Kumari Champa, the grand-daughter of the petitioner as desired by the petitioner. No. costs.