Judgment R. M. Prasad, J. 1. The petitioner in this writ application prays for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to pay the provident Rind, Group Insurance and gratuity on account of death of deepak Kumar Pandey, son of the petitioner, who died on 15-5-1996 while in the service of the State Government appointed as orderly Peon on compassionate ground on the death of his father who also died in harness as Headmaster, daulataganj Middle School, Chapra. 2. The admitted facts are that under the Provident Fund Rules, the son of the petitioner nominated the petitioner to receive the full amount or share of accumulation of the provident fund, vide Annexure 2. However, after the nomination was made, the deceased employee Deepak Kumar Pandey got married with respondent No.5, namely, kamla Devi. When despite nomination made in favour of the petitioner she was not paid the provident fund as well as the Group Insurance amount, she filed the present writ application seeking the aforementioned reliefs. 3. It is not disputed that as per the provisions, contained in Sec.5 of the Provident Fund Act and Rule 12 relating to Group Insurance admissible to the Government servant, a nominee of the deceased employee to receive the provident fund amount is entitled to receive the group insurance amount also. 4. However, it is submitted by Mr. Mahesh Prasad No.2 learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.5 that since the petitioner and the respondent no.5 are the only Class I legal heirs to succeed the deceased employee for receiving the aforementioned amount, the same must be distributed among them in accordance with the Law of succession and mere nomination would not create any right in the petitioner only to receive the pension. In support of this, he referred to a decision of the supreme Court in the case of Sarbati devi V/s. Usha Devi, reported in AIR 1984 S. C.346 ; 1984 (1) SCC 424 . 5. The question before the supreme Court was as to whether a nominee of a life insurance policy under section 39 of the Insurance Act, 1938 on the assured dying intestate would become entitled to the beneficial interest in the amount received under the policy to the exclusion of the heirs of the assured. 5. The question before the supreme Court was as to whether a nominee of a life insurance policy under section 39 of the Insurance Act, 1938 on the assured dying intestate would become entitled to the beneficial interest in the amount received under the policy to the exclusion of the heirs of the assured. It is true that the Supreme Court in the said case has approved the view expressed by other High Courts on the meaning of Sec.39 of the Act and held that mere nomination made under section 39 does not have the effect of conferring on the nominee any beneficial interest in the amount payable under the life insurance policy on the death of the assured. It was further held that the nomination only indicates the hand which is authorised to receive the amount, on the payment of which the insurer gets a valid discharge of its liability under the policy. The Apex court also held that the amount, however, can be claimed by the heirs of the assured in accordance with the law of succession governing them. 6. Thus, according to the aforementioned view expressed by the apex Court, the petitioner being the nominee is entitled to receive the amount as per the nomination made by the deceased Government servant. The amount, however, can be claimed by the heirs, including respondent No.5 in accordance with the law of succession governing them, but that cannot deprive the petitioner from getting the amount on the face of the nomination made in her favour by the deceased government servant. At the same time, the claim of respondent No.5 cannot be brushed aside completely in view of the admitted fact that she was married to deceased Government servant and, thus, obviously she may be entitled to succeed in the property of her deceased husband. 7. Under such circumstances, I dispose of the writ application with a direction to the respondents No.1 and 3 to release the payment of the provident fund and the insurance amount to the petitioner within a period of two weeks on receipt of the adequate security/indemnity bond to the extent of at least 50% of the said amount in view of the claim of only 50% raised by respondent No.5. 8. 8. It is made clear that this order shall not be interpreted to accept the claim of respondent No.5 in any manner which will finally be decided in an appropriate proceeding relating to law of succession. It is further made clear that any amount which is ultimately found to be payable to respondent No.5 by a court of competent jurisdiction out of the said amount received by the petitioner, then respondent No.5 shall be entitled for interest at the prevailing bank rate from the petitioner. Petition Partly Allowed