D. K. SETH, J. ( 1 ) SMT. Maya Johri wife of the petitioner died on 26. 5. 1989 while she was in service. The petitioner by means of this petition had claimed that amount of pension, gratuity amount, group insurance and General Provident Fund linked Insurance have not been paid to him. He also claims that the wife of the petitioner should have been granted selection grade scale of pay with effect from 1. 7. 1983. In the writ petition, no case has been made out as to how the deceased was eligible to selection grade scale of pay with effect from 1. 7. 1983. Therefore, such a claim cannot be adjudicated in the writ petition in absence or any material. ( 2 ) MR. J. K. Tiwari, holding the brief of Mr. Shashi Nandan, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that the G. P. F. amount has been paid to him, but the gratuity, amount of group insurance and G. P. F. linked Insurance has not been paid. In the counter-affidavit, as pointed out by Mr. K. R. Singh, learned standing counsel, it is contended that the gratuity could not be paid since the deceased did not nominate any one and as such in the absence of succession certificate, such gratuity cannot be paid. It seems that there is substance in the submission of Mr. Singh. In para 2 of the writ petition. It has been stated that the petitioner had been claiming that the deceased in her life time nominated the petitioner as her nominee. The said part has been dealt with in the counter-affidavit in para 4 to the extent that the deceased did not submit any nomination as required under the Gratuity Act and there was no paper on the record relating to such nomination. While dealing this para in the rejoinder-affidavit, in para 4. It is admitted that the G. P. F. amount has been sanctioned on the basis of the nomination under the G. P. F. Scheme, but nothing has been said about the nomination under the payment of Gratuity Act. Neither in the writ petition nor in the rejoinder-affidavit it has been pointed out that the deceased had ever taken steps for nomination. Therefore, the amount of gratuity, which is payable under the law has to be paid to the person, who produces a succession certificate. Neither in the writ petition nor in the rejoinder-affidavit it has been pointed out that the deceased had ever taken steps for nomination. Therefore, the amount of gratuity, which is payable under the law has to be paid to the person, who produces a succession certificate. The respondent may pay the amount of gratuity as admissible to the deceased to the petitioner provided he produces or furnishes a succession certificate. However, the respondents shall intimate the petitioner the amount of gratuity payable to the petitioner in order to enable him to obtain a succession certificate in respect of such amount. The question of interest as such becomes irrelevant, since till today the petitioner has not produced any succession certificate while it has not been specifically pleaded that the deceased had ever nominated the petitioner under the payment of gratuity Act. ( 3 ) IN such circumstances, respondents are directed to determine the amount of gratuity payable in the account of the deceased and communicate the same to the petitioner within eight weeks from the date a copy of this order is produced before the concerned respondent. ( 4 ) SO far as the nomination in respect of G. P. F. linked Group Insurance is concerned, if the g. P. F. amount has been paid to the petitioner on the basis of nomination under the provisions of g. P. F. Act, in that event if it is so permissible in law the respondents may not insist for production of succession certificate in respect of payment of Group Insurance and G. P. F. linked insurance if payable to the deceased or the petitioner as the case may be. In the counter-affidavit it has been pointed out by Mr. K. R. Singh, learned standing counsel in para 14 that the deceased had obtained a loan of Rs. 8,000 which has not been repaid. Neither in the writ petition nor in the rejoinder-affidavit, while dealing with para 14, the petitioner has ever alleged that a sum of Rs. 8. 000 which was taken as loan by the deceased had ever been repaid or the same has been adjusted against the amount sanctioned from the G. P. F. Therefore. 8,000 which has not been repaid. Neither in the writ petition nor in the rejoinder-affidavit, while dealing with para 14, the petitioner has ever alleged that a sum of Rs. 8. 000 which was taken as loan by the deceased had ever been repaid or the same has been adjusted against the amount sanctioned from the G. P. F. Therefore. It is not known as to how the petitioner could claim the amount of G. P. F. linked Insurance, when it is provided under Rule 23 that it is payable to a class c employee when the amount payable was Rs. 1,000 in average for the last three years. There is no material on record to decide the entitlement of the petitioner to receive the payment of the said amount, since it has no where been pointed out that what amount was in the credit of the deceased after the loan was obtained. ( 5 ) BE that as it may, in case amount of Rs. 8. 000 is adjusted while sanctioning the amount of g. P. F. from the G. P. F, amount of deceased in that event if the deceased was eligible under Rule 23, the same should be calculated and intimated to the petitioner. At this stage Mr. K. R. Singh, has pointed out from Annexure 11 to the counter-affidavit that the said amount of Rs. 8,000 has not been paid. The said Annexure has not been replied to in the rejoinder-affidavit. Therefore, it seems that there are substance in the submission of Mr. K. R. Singh. In case the amount was not repaid or adjusted against the amount of G. P. F. In that event as contended by Mr. Singh, no amount would be payable on the G. P. F. linked Insurance Scheme. ( 6 ) THE respondents shall, however, consider the question of payment of Group Insurance amount if it is admissible under law on the basis of such nomination under the G. P. F. Scheme, if such amount has been paid on the basis of nomination to the petitioner, otherwise, the petitioner shall also produce the succession certificate if the amount of G. P. F. has not been paid to him or if it is paid on the basis of the succession certificate. ( 7 ) SO far as the question of family pension is concerned. Mr. ( 7 ) SO far as the question of family pension is concerned. Mr. Tiwari very fairly has conceded that the petitioner was in service and was not dependent on his wife, in view of Rule 5 (i) defining the family in the U. P. Contributory Provident Fund Insurance and Pension Rules. It has been mentioned that the family Includes, the relatives mentioned therein, who are wholly dependent on the employee. In sub-clause (ii) of the said Rule, the husband is also included, but in order to be Included in the family he must be wholly dependent on the wife. Since the petitioner himself was also an employee and was in service, as fairly conceded by Mr. Tiwari, it cannot be said that the husband of the deceased was dependent on her. Therefore, he cannot be included within the definition of the family as defined in clause (i) of Rule 5 of the same Rules. In the writ petition the family pension has been claimed by the petitioner as husband. No pleading has been made with regard to other members of the family, who could be eligible under the said definition. Under such circumstances, the claim for the amount of family pension or pension cannot be admitted. ( 8 ) THE writ petition is, therefore, partly allowed with the directions as Indicated in the body of the order. ( 9 ) NO costs. .