Madhya Pradesh High Court
Balo Bai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 February, 2023
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 2 nd OF FEBRUARY, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 9925 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
BALO BAI W/O LATE SHRI ANTRAM, AGED ABOUT 55
YEARS, OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED, R/O WARD NO.
20, VILLAGE DHANGAON TOLA GHUGHRI, TEHSIL
GHUGHRI, DISTRICT MANDLA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PRAVESH NAVERIYA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, EDUCATION (TRIBAL
W E L FA R E ) , DISTRICT MANDLA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. VIKASKHAND EDUCATION OFFICER, VIKAS
KHAND MAVAI, DISTRICT MANDLA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI GIRISH KEKRE - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
By the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner is claiming family pension, gratuity and all other benefits.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANIL
CHOUDHARY
Signing time: 2/7/2023
10:44:27 AM
petitioner namely late Antram was an employee in the School Education
Department who died on 28.12.2020. In the service record of the deceased
employee, the petitioner being a wife is shown to be a nominee. However, even
after death of her husband, retiral dues have not been released in favour of the
petitioner. Therefore, she has filed this petition.
In a reply submitted by the respondents, it is shown that there is another
lady namely Sunita Bai, who is also claiming herself to be the wife of deceased
employee namely Antram and on her claim the respondent/department, in order
to avoid any further complication, hold the retiral dues to be paid to the
petitioner being a nominee of the deceased employee. The respondents have
also taken a stand that Sunita Bai has filed a succession case before the civil
Court which is under pending consideration and therefore, the retiral dues of the
deceased employee could not be released.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no interim order in
favour of another claimant namely Sunita Bai by any of the Courts restraining
the respondents to release the retiral dues in favour of the petitioner who is the
nominee and legally wedded wife of the deceased employee. He further submits
that in view of Rule 46 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for
short the 'Rules, 1976'), the nominee is entitled to get retiral dues of the
deceased employee. He submits that the respondents have no right to retain the
retiral dues otherwise which is to be paid to the petitioner being a nominee of
deceased employee.
Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties,
perusal of Rule 46 of the Rules, 1976 and also taking into consideration the
judgment of this Court reported in 2008 (3) M.P.L.J. 407 (Girija Bai Vs.
State of M.P. and others) in which the High Court taking note of provisions
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANIL
CHOUDHARY
Signing time: 2/7/2023
10:44:27 AM
of Rules 45 and 46 of Rules, 1976 provides as under:-
"9. With regard to gratuity and other benefits there is a
provision of nomination in the Rules of 1976. Rule 45(a) prescribes
the provision for payment of gratuity, which is as under :-
"45. Persons to whom gratuity is payable. -- (1)(a) The
gratuity payable under clause (b) of sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2) of
Rule 44 shall be paid to the person or persons on whom the right to
receive the gratuity is conferred by means of a nomination under
Rule 46.
(b) If there is no such nomination or if the nomination made
does not subsist, the gratuity shall be paid to the legal heirs of the
Government servant."
and Rule 46 of Rules 1976 provides nominations, which is as
under :-
"46. Nominations. -- (1) A Government servant shall, on his
initial appointment in a pensionable service or post, make a
nomination in Form 1 or Form 2 as may be appropriate in the
circumstances of the case, conferring on one or more persons the
right to receive the death-cum-retirement gratuity payable under
clause (b) of sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2) of Rule 44:
Provided that if at the time of making the nomination --
(i) the Government servant has a family, the nomination shall
not be in favour of any person or persons other than the members of
his family; or
(ii) the Government servant has no family, the nomination may
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANIL
CHOUDHARY
Signing time: 2/7/2023
10:44:27 AM
be made in favour of a person or persons, or a body of individuals,
whether incorporated or not."
10. It is clear from the aforesaid provisions of Rules that
gratuity is payable to the nominee, however Rule 46(1) provides that
the nomination shall not be in favour of any person or persons other
than the member of family of employee in the present case. It cannot
be said that the children could be excluded from the family
members."
Indisputably, the wife is one of the family members of the deceased
employee and, therefore her name is recorded in the service record and as such,
she is entitled to receive the retiral dues of the deceased employee. The High
Court in one of the cases i.e.W.P. No.12303/2013 (Smt. Mukta Soodan
Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh) decided on 01.09.2016 has also considered
this aspect as to whether on the basis of nomination, the benefit of retiral dues
and amount arising out of Group Insurance Scheme of 1995 has to be granted
to the nominee. The High Court dealing with the provision of M.P. General
Provident Fund Rules, 1955 in which the family has also been defined and right
of nominee under the provisions of Provident Fund Act, 1925 has also been
provided and finally the High Court has found that in view of the said provision
if nominee is a family member then he/she is entitled to receive the retiral dues
and other amount relating to the retiral dues of the deceased employee. In such
circumstances, no need to ask the nominee to produce any succession
certificate.
Thus, it is clear that in the present case, withholding retiral dues by the
respondents not paying the same to the legally wedded wife or nominee of the
deceased employee is not proper merely because somebody raising a claim that
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANIL
CHOUDHARY
Signing time: 2/7/2023
10:44:27 AM
she is also a wife of the deceased employee and for which she has filed a
succession case. In absence of any interim order by any of the competent
Court having jurisdiction, the nominee cannot be denied to receive the retiral
dues. The petition is, therefore, allowed directing the respondents to release the
retiral dues in favour of the petitioner within a period of two months from the
date of submitting of copy of this order. If retiral dues are not paid within the
stipulated period, then delay in making payment will carry interest @ 6%
thereafter till actual payment is made to the petitioner.
With the aforesaid observation, the petition is allowed.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
ac/-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANIL
CHOUDHARY
Signing time: 2/7/2023
10:44:27 AM
