ORDER Heard the parties and with their consent this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself as the pleadings are complete. 2. The petitioners are the son of late Babulal Mistri, who was an employee of Bihar State Road Transport Corporation. The newly added respondent nos. 6 and 5 are the third son, who is the eldest and his wife. Thus, respondent no.5 is the eldest daughter-in-law if late Babulal Mistri and respondent no.6 is the eldest son of late Babulal Mistri. 3. By this writ petition, the petitioners challenge the right of the Corporation to pay death cum retiral due of late Babulal Mistri to respondent no.5, the eldest daughter-in-law of Babulal Mistri. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the Corporation it is stated that Babulal Mistri had made a nomination in favour of respondent no.5 while he was in service. As per nomination all amount due and payable, in consideration of the service of Babulal Mistri in the event of his death, was payable to Lalwanti Devi, wife of Ashok Vishwakarma, the eldest son. Accordingly so long as Babulal Mistri was alive, whatever payments were sanctioned, were paid to him. After his death whatever payment remains and is payable is being paid as per nomination to respondent no.5. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners draws my attention to Bihar State Road Transport Corporation Contributory Provident Fund Regulations, 1960 and in particular to Regulation 2(e) (i) and Regulation 14(b) (i). The aforesaid provisions define what is the family and then it states that nomination can only be made in favour of family member. He argued that the definition of ‘family’ does not include daughter-in-law and as such the nomination is invalid. The argument is noticed only to be rejected. It is not in dispute that these definitions are for the purposes of payment of contributory provident fund alone. It is also not in dispute that so far as contributory provident fund is concerned, it was paid to Babulal Mistri after his superannuation when he was still alive. The nomination did not take effect because he was personally present. Thus the regulation exhausted itself. The nomination as made by him would now operate only in respect of dues other than CPF. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to show any such restriction in regard to nomination of other dues. 7. The nomination did not take effect because he was personally present. Thus the regulation exhausted itself. The nomination as made by him would now operate only in respect of dues other than CPF. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to show any such restriction in regard to nomination of other dues. 7. It may be noted here that the nomination is distinct from assignment. The nomination only gives right to a person to receive the money and give a valid discharge to the payer. The money received is always in trust for the actual claimant/ heir. By nomination a person does not became entitled to the said property as his own. He is merely a trustee. Thus, if the petitioner has any grievance and claim any amount he cannot stop the Corporation from making payment to the nominee and getting a valid discharge in that regard. Once payments are validly made to the nominee, which they are bound to make it, it is amongst the heirs/ claimants as to how proceeds have to be distributed. In case there is any dispute that has to be resolved by the Civil Court. Thus, I am unable to interfere in the matter. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners draws my attention to Annexure 1 to the writ petition, which is allegedly a sort of Panchayti by which Babulal Mistri is said to have agreed to share amongst all his sons, the amount that would be received as his retiral due. Admittedly, no efforts were made to get the nomination cancelled. This agreement does not affect the Corporation in any manner. Thus, the result is the same .If the petitioners’ claim by virtue of this agreement then it is for them to go and establish their rights in Civil Court inter se between them. The Corporation has nothing to do with it nor can this Court interfere in the matter. 9. Thus, I find no merit in this case. The writ petition is thus dismissed.