Judgment R.M.Prasad, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner, who is the widow of late Shiv Parasan Bhagat who died on 6-4-1998 while in the service of the State Government, is aggrieved by the order, contained in letter No. 2318 dated 12-9-1998 (Annexure-7) issued by the Executive Engineer, Sone Canal Division, Ara, whereby and whereunder the Executive Engineer informed the petitioner that her deceased-husband had made nomination in favour of his nephews for payment of 50 % of the gratuity amount. As such, if she gives consent, the same shall be paid to them or she may produce the necessary succession certificate for disbursement of the said amount in her favour. 2. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent-Executive Engineer. In paragraph 4 of the said counter-affidavit it, is stated that the deceased-Government servant had submitted nomination in favour of Satrughna Prasad Bhagat and Mahendra Prasad Bhagat, both nephews, to get 25% each of the gratuity amount and for the remaining 50% nomination was made in favour of his two sons, namely, Harendra Prasad Bhagat and Ganesh Prasad Bhagat. It is, thus, submitted on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief from this Court. 3. Mr. Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the proviso to Sub-clause (2) of clause 3 of Annexure-4 to Appendix 5 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 , the nomination can only be made in favour of the members of his family by the Government servant. Family has been defined in Sub-clause (a) which does not include nephew. It is, thus, submitted that the petitioner, who is admittedly the legally-wedded wife and receiving other pensionary benefits, is entitled to receive the remaining gratuity amount. It is further submitted by Mr. Sinha that the two sons and the daughter of the deceased-Government servant have already filed affidavits in favour of the petitioner to receive all payments payable on account of deceased-Government servant. Photo copies of the said affidavits have been annexed as Annexure-6 series. It is, thus, submitted that the petitioner is entitled to get the entire gratuity amount which has unnecessarily been kept withheld by the respondent-Executive Engineer for over one year. 4. Photo copies of the said affidavits have been annexed as Annexure-6 series. It is, thus, submitted that the petitioner is entitled to get the entire gratuity amount which has unnecessarily been kept withheld by the respondent-Executive Engineer for over one year. 4. Learned, Counsel for the State has not been able to show any provision under which a person is required to file succession certificate, in the facts and circumstances aforementioned. In view of the aforementioned provision contained in Appendix 5, nomination cannot be made in favour of any person or persons other than the members of the family of the Government servant which does not include nephew. Under such circumstances, the respondent-Executive Engineer was not legally justified in withholding the payment of the gratuity amount to the petitioner, on the above-mentioned ground. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed with a direction to the Executive Engineer, Sone Canal Division, Ara (Respondent No. 2) to issue necessary sanction order for payment of the gratuity amount in favour of the petitioner, whereupon the Accountant-General shall issue necessary authority slip within a week of the receipt of the Sanction order.