JUDGMENT P. D. Desai, C. J. —Dr S. K. Dhawan and Dr. Jogesh Kaur, both of whom were at the material time, in the employment of the respondent-University as Lecturers, had entered into a wedlock. The second respondent (minor Niyati) was born out of the said wedlock. The marriage was, however, dissolved by a decree of divorce passed on April 28, 1983. The custody of minor Niyati has remained with Dr. Jogesh Kaur after the dissolution of the marriage. 2. Dr S K Dhawan thereafter married Dr. (Miss) Harvinder Virk, who was working as Reader in the Evening College run by the respondent-University. Unfortunately, in an accident which took place on November V 1S both Dr S. K. Dhawan and Dr. (Mrs.) Harvinder Dhawan died. Dr. SK. Dhawan left behind him his mother (the petitioner) and minor daughter Niyati. 3. On December 12, 1983, Dr. S. K. Dhawan had forwarded a fresh nomination form to the respondent-University nominating his wife (Dr. (Mrs.) Harvinder Dhawan) as the person entitled to receive the entire to receive the entire amount that might stand to his credit in the Himachal Pradesh University Employees Provident Fund in the event of his death and, in the event of his death and, in the event of his wife predeceasing him, naming Mrs. Damyanti Dhawan (mother) and minor Niyati (daughter) as the alternate nominees. In column 5 of the nomination from, the following endorsement is also found to have been made below the names of the alternate nominees: "The amount to pass to No. 2 nominee above i.e. to daughter inevent of contingency governing main nominee, which should also govern nominee No. 1 above, i. e. mother. Dr (Mrs) Harvinder Dhawan, however, did not make any nomination in respect of the amount to her credit in the Employees Provident Fund. 4. Sometime after the death of Dr. S. K. Dhawan, Dr. Jogesh Kaur made a decSration on affidavit, a copy whereof is placed on the record of the case as Annexure P-l, purporting to act on her own behalf and in her Capacity as the natural guardian minor Niyati, wherein she declared that w share and that of her minor daughter in the property of Dr. S. K. Dhawan and of his second wife (Dr. (Mrs.) Harvinder Dhawan) was being surrendered and extinguished in favour of his mother "if so willed by him in our favour". 5. S. K. Dhawan and of his second wife (Dr. (Mrs.) Harvinder Dhawan) was being surrendered and extinguished in favour of his mother "if so willed by him in our favour". 5. On February 7, 1987, the petitioner appears to have addressed a letter to the respondent-University seeking information as to the sums due and payable to the heirs of her deceased son Dr. S. K. Dhawan. A reply, Annexure P-2, dated February 25, 1987, was sent to her stating that on a provisional basis the following amounts were due and payable to the legal heir(s) of the deceased : 1. Death-cum-retirement gratuity : Rs. 24,936 (approx). 2. Ex gratia grant: Rs. 30,000 3. CP.F. : Rs. 50,370.30 (approx). The communication mentioned that the sum due and payable as leave encashment would be communicated later. By yet another communication dated March 19, 1987, Annexure P-3, the petitioner was informed that the sums payable as Death-cum- Retirement Gratuity and C. P. F. contribution were Rs. 17,162.75 (approximately) and Rs. 98,872.88 respectively on a provisional basis. 6. It appears that the respondent-University was not willing to pay the entire amount of the dues of her deceased son to the petitioner and she appears to have been advised to obtain a Succession Certificate under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 from the Court of competent jurisdiction. The petitioner, therefore, made two different applications, one in respect of the dues/debts of her deceased son Dr. S. K. Dhawan and the other in respect of the dues/debts of her deceased daughter-in-law, Dr. (Mrs.) Harvinder Dhawan. The first application was made on March 23, 1987 and the second on March 28, 1987. Both these applications were decided on November 30, 1987. Both two separate Succession Certificates, each dated December 19, 1987, were issued in favour of the petitioner as a result of the said decision. These Succession Certificates are at Annexures P-4 and P-5. Be it stated that both these certificates are in respect of the debt owed by the respondent-University to the estates of the deceased by way of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity, Ex gratia Grant and C. P. F. 7. The Succession Certificates were produced by the petitioner before the respondent-University on or about December 22, 1987. On February 10, 1988, sanction was accorded, vide Annexure P-8, to the payment of the sum of Rs. 30,000 (Ex gratia grant in respect of Dr. The Succession Certificates were produced by the petitioner before the respondent-University on or about December 22, 1987. On February 10, 1988, sanction was accorded, vide Annexure P-8, to the payment of the sum of Rs. 30,000 (Ex gratia grant in respect of Dr. S. K. Dhawan) to the petitioner. On the same day, another communication, Annexure P-9, was addressed to the petitioner by the respondent-University advising her that her claims in respect of the debts and securities of Dr. S. K. Dhawan and Dr. (Mrs.) Harvinder Dhawan were examined and the following position had emerged : "(i) Claims arising out of the death of S. K. Dhawan. Dues/Claim Entitlement Provident Fund Daughter. D.C. R.G. Daughter. Ex gratia grant Mother, (ii) Claims arising out of the death of Shrimati H. Virk (Dhawan). Provident Fund Neither mother-in-law is entitled nor daughter(step). D.C.R.G. Daughter (step). Ex-gratia grant Neither mother-in-law is entitled nor daughter (step)." The petitioner was advised to move the civil court and to obtain a decree with respect to the amounts to which she was not found entitled as aforesaid. 8. The petitioner thereupon made a representation dated February 16, 1988, Annexure P-10, to the Vice-Chancellor of the respondent-University pointing out, inter-alia, that by virtue of the Succession Certificates issued in her favour, she was entitled to recover all the debts and securities of her deceased son and daughter-in-law from the respondent-University and she requested that the payment be made to her immediately. Some correspondence appears to have ensued thereafter between the petitioner and the respondent-University. By a communication dated March 29, 1988, Annexure P-12, she was informed that as per the legal opinion received by the respondent-University, she was not entitled to claim anything more than what was communicated to her vide communication dated February 10, 1988, Annexure P-9. 9. The petitioner thereupon instituted the present petition seeking a direction to the respondent-University to pay all the dues/claims arising out of the deaths of her deceased son and daughter-in-law together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. 10. In paragraph 12 of the petition, it is averred that the petitioner and minor Niyati are the only heirs of deceased Dr. S. K. Dhawan in accordance with law and that none else is entitled to succeed to his estate. Besides, according to the petitioner, even with respect to the estate of Dr. 10. In paragraph 12 of the petition, it is averred that the petitioner and minor Niyati are the only heirs of deceased Dr. S. K. Dhawan in accordance with law and that none else is entitled to succeed to his estate. Besides, according to the petitioner, even with respect to the estate of Dr. (Mrs.) Harvinder Dhawan, the petitioner and minor Niyati alone are entitled to succeed thereto in accordance with law. 11. On behalf of the respondent-University, the Registrar has filed the affidavit-in-reply dated May 7, 1988. In para 10 of the said affidavit, the stand taken up in the communications dated February 10, 1988 and March 29, 1988, Annexures P-9 and P-12 respectively, has been reiterated. 12. On May 4, 1988, while issuing notice of the petition, the respondent-University was directed to deposit in the Registry of this Court, on or before May 7, 1988, the entire amount due and payable by and on behalf of the respondent-University to the legal representatives of Dr. S. K. Dhawan and Dr. (Mrs.) Harvinder Dhawan. The respondent-University has accordingly deposited a sum of Rs. 2,37,329.18 in the Registry. The break-up of the amount accordingly deposited is mentioned in the letter dated May 6, 1988, which has been placed on the record of the case. Be it stated that the amount deposited as aforesaid is the balance amount due and payable after deducting the Ex-gratia grant of Rs. 30,000 paid to the petitioner in respect of her son. So far as the Ex-gratia grant payable in respect of Dr. (Mrs.) Harvinder Dhawan is concerned, according to the respondent-University, none is entitled to receive the said amount in accordance with the provisions of the scheme under which such grant is allowed. 13. Shri Devinder Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, states on the express authority received from his client, who is present in the court, that she does not claim beneficial interest in the whole of the amount due from and payable by the respondent-Ijniversity in respect of the debts owed to her deceased son and daughter-in-law and that she claims only one-half share in the said amount in view of the provisions of sections 8 and 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). He further states that the petitioner has no objection if the amount falling to the share of the minor is invested in the joint names of minor Niyati and her mother till she attains majority. 14. Dr. Jogesh Kaur, who is present in the Court, states that the amount falling to the share of minor Niyati be directed to be invested in the name of the Registrar of this Court by designation till she attains majority and that a provision be made that the interest may accumulate and that upon attaining majority the said amount alongwith the accumulated inte rest be paid to her daughter. 15. Dr. S. K. Dhawan and Dr. (Mrs.) Harvinder Dhawan both died intestate. Their deaths occurred simultaneously as a result of an accident. The devolution of their property, which, for the purposes of the present case, specifically comprises the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity and the amounts standing to their credit in the Employees Provident Fund, is governed by the Act. According to section 8 read with the Schedule, the petitioner and minor Niyati are the only heirs in equal shares of Dr. S. K. Dhawan so far as such property is concerned. So far as Dr. (Mrs.) Harvinder Dhawan is concerned, since she left behind no children or grand children and the husband died simultaneously, her aforesaid property would devolve in equal shares upon the heirs of her husband under section 15 of the Act and, accordingly, the petitioner and minor Niyati are again the only heirs who have a legal right, thereto. The nomination, if any, made by the deceased does not have the effect of conferring any exclusive beneficial interest in such property upon the nominee. The nomination only indicates the hand which is authorised to receive the amount. Upon payment being made to such person, a valid discharge might become operative in favour of the person paying the amount. Such amount, however, can be claimed by the heirs of the deceased in accordance with the law of succession governing them. This legal position is incapable of being disputed in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Smt. Sarbati Devi and another v. Smt. Usha Devi, AIR 1984 SC 346. The petitioner and minor Niyati are, therefore, entitled to receive in equal shares the amounts due from and payable by the respondent-University as a result of the death of Dr. The petitioner and minor Niyati are, therefore, entitled to receive in equal shares the amounts due from and payable by the respondent-University as a result of the death of Dr. S. K. Dhawan and Dr. (Mrs.) Harvinder Dhawan. 16. The declaration made by Dr. Jogesh Kaur surrendering the share of the minor in the estate of her deceased husband Dr. S. K. Dhawan and his second wife Dr. (Mrs.) Harvinder Dhawan, has no effect the eyes of law because she could not have made such a declaration which is against the interests and rights of the minor. 17. The Court is of the view that the respondent-University wrongfully withheld the different amounts due and payable to the person(s) entitled thereto. As earlier pointed out, the nomination made by Dr. S. K. Dhawan in favour of his mother/minor daughter, so far as the amount standing to his credit in the Employees Provident Fund is concerned, would have operated as valid discharge in favour of the respondent-University, if the payment was made on the strength of such nomination. Besides, upon the production of the Succession Certificates, Annexures P-4 and P-5, issued by the learned District Judge, Simla, the payment of the sums covered thereby should have been made to the petitioner since no claim by and on behalf of any other person was made before the respondent-University. Section 381 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, in terms provides that subject to the provisions of Chapter X, the succession certificate issued by the District Judge, shall, with respect of the debts and securities specified therein, be conclusive as against the persons owing such debts or liable on such securities and shall, notwithstanding any contravention of section 370 or other defect, afford full indemnity to all such persons as regards all payments made, or dealings had, in good faith in respect of such debts or securities to or with the person to whom the certificate was granted. Under the circumstances, the respondent-University had no justification for withholding the payment. 18. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition succeeds and it is allow ed. The petitioner and the second respondent are held entitled to receive in equal shares all the claims and dues of deceased Dr. S. K. Dhawan from the respondent-University. Under the circumstances, the respondent-University had no justification for withholding the payment. 18. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition succeeds and it is allow ed. The petitioner and the second respondent are held entitled to receive in equal shares all the claims and dues of deceased Dr. S. K. Dhawan from the respondent-University. Similarly, they are also held entitled to receive in equal shares all the claims and dues (other than the Ex gratia Grant) of deceased Dr. (Mrs.) Harvinder Dhawan from the respondent-University. The respondent-University is held liable to pay to them interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the entire amount deposited in the Registry and on any other or further amount becoming due and payable by virtue of this order on and from December 22, 1987 till the date of deposit payment. It is clarified, however, that if any portion of the amount deposited in the Registry includes interest already paid on such portion of the amount, such interest paid accordingly shall be deducted from the interest which is ordered to be paid as aforesaid. The amount of interest becoming due and payable by virtue of this order will be deposited in the Registry within a period of four weeks. The petitioner will be permitted to withdraw half of the total amount deposited in the Registry towards her share subject to what follows. 19. The petitioner has already received Ex-gratia Grant in the sum of Rs. 30,000 from the respondent-University so far as the said claim in respect of Dr. S. K. Dhawan is concerned. The second respondent is entitled to claim half share in the said amount. Under the circumstances, the petitioner will have to reimburse a sum of Rs. 15,000 to the second respondent as her share in the said amount. In order to facilitate the recovery of such amount, it is directed that the Registry will pay to the petitioner her half share in the amount deposited in the Registry after deducting the aforesaid sum of Rs. 15,000 and credit the same to the account of the second respondent. 20. The Registrar of this Court will invest one-half share of the minor second respondent in Six Years National Savings Certificates (VI Series). The amount becoming due and payable upon maturity of the said National Savings Certificates will be paid to her if she has already attained majority by then. 20. The Registrar of this Court will invest one-half share of the minor second respondent in Six Years National Savings Certificates (VI Series). The amount becoming due and payable upon maturity of the said National Savings Certificates will be paid to her if she has already attained majority by then. If not, it will be invested in a fixed deposit/short term deposit for the remainder period and the entire amount will then be paid to her upon attaining majority. 21. Rule made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. Rule made absolute. COPY OF ORDER 19-7-1988. Present: Shri Devinder Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Bhawani Singh, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Nemo on behalf of respondent No. 2. P. D. Desai, C. J.—The Registrar has made a report dated July 11, 1988, in Part B of the case file that investment of the amount falling to the share of minor Niyati cannot be made by him in Six Years National Savings Certificates (VI Series) in view of the rules governing the said Scheme. 23. Under the circumstances, the direction issued in the penultimate paragraph of the judgment rendered on May 11, 1988, is modified and the Registrar is directed to invest the said amount in the Scheme of the Unit Trust of India known as Children’s Gift Growth Fund, 1986 (CGGF 1986) and authorised to take the necessary action(s) in that behalf. The nomination shall be in favour of the mother of the minor Mrs. Jogesh Kaur. The follow-up action shall be taken with the utmost expedition. Order accordingly.