JUDGMENT By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents to pay service dues of Km. Savitri Nautiyal, a deceased employee, in the office of Chief Development Officer, Uttarkashi. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit, on record. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, Km. Savitri Nautiyal, sister of the petitioner, was working as Village Development Officer, Dunda, in the office of the Chief Development Officer, Uttarkashi. She remained unmarried throughout her life and died as a spinster on 03.04.2008 (copy of the death certificate of Km. Savitri Nautiyal is annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition). Petitioner’s case is that being brother of the deceased he is the legal heir of the deceased employee. Apart from this, it has been stated that the deceased employee had nominated the petitioner as nominee in the nomination from the Death Cum Retirement Gratuity (copy of which is Annexure-3 to the writ petition). Similarly, he has been nominated in other papers. The petitioner has filed certificate issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dunda, on 11th of April 2008 (copy of which is Annexure-4 to the writ petition) stating that the petitioner is nearest relative of the deceased Savitri Nautiyal. It is stated in the writ petition that on 05.07.2008, petitioner made a representation to the respondent No. 2, claiming the dues of the deceased employee, but the same was not paid to him. Hence, this writ petition. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2, in which it has been admitted that Km. Savitri Nautiyal was initially appointed as Village Level Worker on 29.11.1984, at Chinyalisaur, District Uttarkashi. It is also admitted that she died in harness on 3rd of April 2008, while she was posted with Gram Panchayat Block Office in Vhatwari. On behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2, it has been further stated that after death of Km. Savitri Nautiyal, Ganga Prasad Dangwal (respondent No. 3) also moved an application claiming the post retrial dues of the deceased employee (Savitri Nautiyal). It is further stated in the counter affidavit that Ganga Prasad Dangwal is son of sister of Savitri Nautiyal. On behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2, it has been further stated that after death of Km. Savitri Nautiyal, Ganga Prasad Dangwal (respondent No. 3) also moved an application claiming the post retrial dues of the deceased employee (Savitri Nautiyal). It is further stated in the counter affidavit that Ganga Prasad Dangwal is son of sister of Savitri Nautiyal. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that Ganga Prasad Dangwal is son of sister of Savitri Nautiyal. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that though under the Government Order dated 28th of July 1989, pay and gratuity etc. are required to be paid to the nominee of the deceased employee, but before her death Km. Savitri Nautiyal moved an application for change of nomination made by her earlier, in favour of respondent No. 3 Ganga Prasad Dangwal, as such, the Government could not make payment either to the petitioner or to the respondent No. 3, as the two did not reach to any mutual understanding. 5. In the rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner the averments made in the writ petition are reiterated, and it has been stated that the petitioner has also obtained a succession certificate from the court of District Judge, Uttarkashi, for receiving the savings of the deceased, lying with the State Bank of India, Uttarkashi, in her account, and said amount has been withdrawn by the petitioner. 6. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 Ganga Prasad Dangwal, in which it has been stated that the assertion of the petitioner that he is nominee of Km. Savitri Nautiyal, is wrong. It is further stated that the deceased employee had applied for change in nomination by moving an application. It is further stated that she executed a registered Will on 25.12.2007, in favour of respondent No. 3(copy of which is Annexure I-3 to the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 3). It is further stated that the application for change of nomination has not been disposed of by the authorities concerned. 7. A nomination made by an employee or an account holder, only facilitates payment by the person in whose custody the money is lying of the employee or the account holder, by making payment to such nominated person on the contingency like death etc., for which the nomination is made. 7. A nomination made by an employee or an account holder, only facilitates payment by the person in whose custody the money is lying of the employee or the account holder, by making payment to such nominated person on the contingency like death etc., for which the nomination is made. In other words, it is a third party discharge, without going into the controversy as to who is actually entitled to succeed the amount. Admittedly, petitioner was nominated by the deceased employee Savitri Nautiyal in her service record to receive the amount, on her death. The dispute has arisen only because, just before her death it is stated by respondents No. 1 and 2 and respondent No. 3 that she sought change of the nomination. Annexure A-13 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 which is said to be nomination from submitted by the deceased employee, for change of nomination, does not bear any date. Signatures of the witnesses are also struck off. Not only this, the form is not filed completely as to what shall be the shares of the persons sought to be nominated in place of the petitioner, nor is it mentioned that on which contingencies the nomination would become invalid. Besides this, the form for family pension, for change of nomination, a photocopy of which is Annexure A-12 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2, shows that it does not bear the signature of Km. Savitri Nautiyal (the deceased employee). It shows that the Block Development Officer has signed even before the employee could sign this form. The signatures of the witnesses are already struck off in said form. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the nomination stood changed. This Court thinks it just and proper to mention that the observations made above shall not effect the right of the parties who are entitled to succeed the property of the deceased. If the respondent No. 3, on the basis of the Will claims that he is entitled to receive the amount, he could file a suit before the competent court for the purpose, against the petitioner. But, as far as the entitlement of receiving the General Provident Fund/Gratuity etc. If the respondent No. 3, on the basis of the Will claims that he is entitled to receive the amount, he could file a suit before the competent court for the purpose, against the petitioner. But, as far as the entitlement of receiving the General Provident Fund/Gratuity etc. of the deceased employee is concerned, in view of the nomination made in favour of the petitioner, he is entitled to the same without prejudice to the rights of the respondent No. 3. 8. For the reasons as discussed above, this writ petition is allowed directing the respondents No. 1 and 2 to release the payment of General Provident Fund/Gratuity and other dues relating to deceased employee Km. Savitri Nautiyal, to the petitioner Ram Chandra Nautiyal, as per the nomination made by her, in his favour. (Misc. Application No. 2557 of 2009 also stands disposed of).