JUDGMENT The widow and child of a deceased State Govt. employee have filed this revision against the order passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of Distt .Judge, Raipur, granting succession certificate in favour of mother of the deceased, namely the respondent. Vijay kumar, son of the respondent, married the revision petitioner No.1. Second revision petitioner is their son. The deceased was a State Govt. employee. He contributed to the G.P.F. Scheme, Group Insurance Scheme, Family Pension Scheme etc. for which he had nominated his mother. He had a sum of Rs.4,000.00 in deposit with the Central Cooperative Bank and State Bank of India.The lower Court granted succession certificate in favour of the revision "petitioners regarding the bank deposits, but granted a certificate in favour of the mother regarding G.P.F. Scheme, G.I. Scheme, Family Pension etc. This is objected to by the revision petitioners. A nomination does not confer rights on the parties. It only indicates the person who is entitled to collect the amount due. According to Rule 8 of the M.P. General Provident Fund Rules, read with the note thereto, the nomination of mother is ineffective if on the death of the subscriber, he leaves behind a wife and a child or a member of the family, as defined. Mother is not a member as defined. Therefore, the lower Court was In error in granting succession certificate in favour of the mother. Succession certificate for G.P.F., G.I. Scheme, Family Pension etc. will be given to the first petitioner subject to the right of the respondent to obtain her share of the same under the provisions of Hindu Succession Act. The revision is allowed, but without costs.