JUDGMENT : P.S.Rana, J. Present Civil Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is pleaded that on dated 28.8.2007 Dr. Naveen Sood son of petitioners and husband of respondent No.5 and father of respondents No.6 and 7 who was serving as medical officer died in harness. It is further pleaded that on dated 22.9.2009 final payment of General Provident Fund in respect of deceased Dr. Naveen Sood was paid by respondent No. 4 in terms of clarification issued by respondent No.3 vide letter dated 13.7.2009 Annexure P1 to respondents No. 5 to 7 and petitioners in five equal shares since they were covered under the term 'Family’. It is further pleaded that dispute inter se the parties is regarding disbursement of claims relating to (1) Leave encashment amount (2) Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity amount (3) Group Insurance Scheme amount. It is further pleaded that on dated 8.4.2011 it was informed that amount of death-cum-retirement gratuity was Rs.5,85,000/- (Five lac eighty five thousand) and amount of leave encashment was Rs. 2,28,600/- (Two lac twenty eight thousand six hundred). It is further pleaded that the shares of the petitioners in leave encashment amount, death-cum-retirement gratuity amount and group insurance scheme amount should be ordered to be refunded from respondent No. 5 Smt Anuradha Sood who had received entire amount after the death of her husband. Prayer for acceptance of writ petition sought. 2. Per contra reply and counter claim filed on behalf of respondent No.5 Smt Anuradha Sood pleaded therein that civil writ petition is not maintainable. It is further pleaded that deceased Dr. Naveen Sood has filed his nomination on dated 13.9.1992. It is further pleaded that certified copy of nomination is Annexure R1. It is further pleaded that 2/5th share in the General Provident Fund given to petitioners is wrong and against the rules. It is admitted that Dr. Naveen Sood died on dated 28.8.2007 while working as medical officer at Health Centre, Takipur Tehsil and District Kangra HP. It is denied that deceased Dr Naveen Sood did not file any nomination papers in the name of respondent No.5 Smt. Anuradha Sood during his life time for the payment of his dues in the service record. It is further pleaded that deceased Dr Naveen Sood has filed his nomination on dated 13.9.1992 with the department and nomination was duly witnessed by Dr. It is further pleaded that deceased Dr Naveen Sood has filed his nomination on dated 13.9.1992 with the department and nomination was duly witnessed by Dr. Raj Kumar the then Medical Officer Incharge Civil Hospital Garli where he was working at that time. It is further pleaded that nomination was also witnessed by Sh Dhani Ram Kondal who was working as a Senior Clerk in the hospital at that time. It is further pleaded that replying respondents have also sent a copy of the aforesaid nomination to Accountant General HP vide registered AD No RLAD A 2226 dated 10.12.2007 vide Annexure R/2. It is denied that deceased Dr. Naveen Sood has not filed any nomination during his life time. It is further pleaded that deceased had left behind his widow and two daughters and they are legally entitled for leave encashment amount, death-cumretirement gratuity and group insurance scheme amount. It is further pleaded that petitioners were not dependent upon the deceased. It is further pleaded that petitioners have independent ration cards of their own. It is further pleaded that petitioners are running a shop for the last 50 years in their own village at Pragpur and they are getting regular income from the shop. It is further pleaded that petitioners have landed property at Pragpur, Dhaliara, Theog and Shimla from which they are getting substantial income. It is further pleaded that petitioners have also acquired policies from the post office, insurance companies and mutual funds from which they are earning lot of money every month. It is further pleaded that petitioners are paying income tax every year. It is further pleaded that petitioners are also claiming medical reimbursement through their eldest son who is employed in the National Insurance Company at Jawalamukhi. It is further pleaded that replying respondents are living in a rented house. It is further pleaded that petitioners have intentionally made false statement that they were dependent upon the deceased at the time of his death. It is further pleaded that leave encashment amount, death-cum-retirement gratuity amount and group insurance scheme amount were paid to respondent No.5 strictly as per rules. Prayer for dismissal of writ petition sought. Respondent No.5 also filed counter claim for refund of amount of General Provident Fund paid to petitioners. Petitioners also filed rejoinder and reasserted the allegation pleaded in the writ petition. 3. Prayer for dismissal of writ petition sought. Respondent No.5 also filed counter claim for refund of amount of General Provident Fund paid to petitioners. Petitioners also filed rejoinder and reasserted the allegation pleaded in the writ petition. 3. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 and Mr. S.K.Sood, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents No.5 to 7 and also perused entire records carefully. 4. Following points arise for determination in the present writ petition: (1) Whether petitioners are legally entitled for payment of (1) Leave encashment amount (2) Death-cum-retirement gratuity amount (3) Group insurance scheme amount as alleged in the civil writ petition. (2) Whether respondents No. 5 to 7 are legally entitled for refund of General Provident Fund amount as pleaded in counter claim. (3) Final Order. Finding upon Point No.1. 5. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioners that petitioners are father and mother of deceased Dr Naveen Sood who died on dated 28.8.2007 and they are legally entitled for (1) Leave encashment amount (2) Death-cum-retirement gratuity amount (3) Group insurance amount which was payable to deceased Dr Naveen Sood is decided accordingly for the reason hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that amount of leave encashment payment of employee who died during service is governed by Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules 1972 and these Rules came into operation on 1.6.1972. Rule 39-C deals with payment of leave encashment amount. As per rule 39-C of Central Civil Services Leave Rules 1972 leave encashment amount after the death of employee is payable to different classes of relations mentioned in rule 39-C. There are 1 to 11 classes mentioned in Rule 39- C. Widow falls in class (i) of rule 39-C and Father and Mother falls in class (v) and (vi). First category will be preferred to other categories. All leave encashment payment is governed under Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules 1972. It is well settled law that under Article 309 of the Constitution of India any rules so made have effect of act. In view of fact that special Central Civil Service (Leave) Rules 1972 came into effect on 1.6.1972. It is held that payment of amount of leave encashment will be governed by rule 39-C of Central Civil Service (Leave) Rules 1972. In view of fact that special Central Civil Service (Leave) Rules 1972 came into effect on 1.6.1972. It is held that payment of amount of leave encashment will be governed by rule 39-C of Central Civil Service (Leave) Rules 1972. It is held that petitioners are not legally entitled for payment of leave encashment amount of deceased Dr Naveen Sood in view of rule 39-C of Central Civil Service (Leave) Rules 1972 6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioners that payment of leave encashment amount will be governed by Hindu Succession Act and as per Hindu Succession Act mother falls as class-I heir and she is legally entitled for payment of leave encashment amount of deceased Dr Naveen Sood who died on dated on 28.8.2007 is rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. It is held that Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules 1972 came into operation on 1.6.1972 for governing payment of leave encashment amount. It is well settled law that when there is a conflict between general law and special law then special law always prevails over the general law. Part 14 of the Constitution of India deals with service matter under the Union and the State. As per Article 309 of the Constitution of India any rules so framed shall have the effect of act. Hence it is held that rules framed under Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules 1972 which came into operation on 1.6.1972 will prevail upon Hindu Succession Act 1956 qua payment of leave encashment amount of deceased employee. Hence it is held that payment of entire leave encashment amount to the widow of deceased has been paid by respondents No. 1 to 4 strictly as per rule 39-C(i) of Central Civil Service (Leave) Rules 1972 and there is no illegality in the payment of leave encashment amount to the widow of deceased who falls in the first category. Even petitioners did not fall within the definition of family because respondent No.5 has specifically stated by way of affidavit that petitioners are residing separately from respondents No.5 to 7 and petitioners have separate ration card. It is well settled law that after the preparation of separate ration card family did not remain joint family. 7. Even petitioners did not fall within the definition of family because respondent No.5 has specifically stated by way of affidavit that petitioners are residing separately from respondents No.5 to 7 and petitioners have separate ration card. It is well settled law that after the preparation of separate ration card family did not remain joint family. 7. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners that petitioners are also entitled for death-cumretirement gratuity amount is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that payment of gratuity amount of deceased employee is governed under Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1972. It is well settled law that Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1972 came into operation on 1.6.1972. As per Rule 51 of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1972 the gratuity is payable by means of a nomination under Rule 53 and if there is no nomination then gratuity of employee should be paid as per rule 50 of sub-rule (6) of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1972. As per rule 50 of sub-rule (6) eleven categories have been specified and widow has been shown in first category and father and mother have been shown in 6th and 7th category. It is well settled law that first category have a preferential right of payment than that to other category. In the present case no nomination document placed on record qua the payment of gratuity amount and only Annexure R1 has been placed on record which is related to General Provident Fund. It is well settled law that concept of Provident Fund and gratuity amount are two different concept. In the absence of any nomination qua gratuity amount the present case will be governed under rule 50 of sub-rule (6) of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1972. In the present case widow of the deceased is still alive and she falls in first category and she has the preferential right of payment of death-cum-retirement gratuity amount. It is held that petitioners are not entitled for payments of death-cum-retirement amount of deceased Dr Naveen Sood in view of Central Civil Service Pension Rules 1972. 8. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners that petitioners are legally entitled for the amount of group insurance scheme is accepted for the reason hereinafter mentioned. It is held that petitioners are not entitled for payments of death-cum-retirement amount of deceased Dr Naveen Sood in view of Central Civil Service Pension Rules 1972. 8. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners that petitioners are legally entitled for the amount of group insurance scheme is accepted for the reason hereinafter mentioned. Himachal Pradesh Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme 1984 came into force on 1st April, 1985. HP Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme 1984 is relating to the amount deposited in Group Insurance Scheme and as per the Scheme the amount of Group Insurance Scheme should be paid to the person mentioned in the nomination form and in the absence of nomination the amount of insurance scheme should be paid to the member of the family of deceased as defined in General Provident Fund (Central Services) Rules 1960. No nomination paper qua payment of amount of Group Insurance Scheme placed on record. As per Rule 2 of sub-rule (C) of General Provident Fund (Central Services) Rules, 1960 family has been defined as wife, parents, children, minor brothers, unmarried sisters, deceased son’s widow and children in the first category. Hence it is held that petitioners are entitled for payment of Group Insurance Scheme amount as per their shares. Point No.1 is decided accordingly. Finding upon Point No.2. 9. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.5 Smt Anuradha Sood that as per Annexure R2 placed on record she has been mentioned as nominee qua provident fund amount and respondents No. 1 to 4 have illegally paid the amount of provident fund in favour of the petitioners and the same be got refunded from the petitioners is decided accordingly for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that amount of provident fund as per General Provident Fund (Central Services) Rules 1960 should be paid to nominee. It is held that as per rule 33 of General Provident Fund (Central Services) Rules 1960 the amount of General Provident Fund (GPF) should be paid to nominee and in the absence of nominee the same should be paid to the member of the family of deceased as defined under Section 2(c) of General Provident Fund (Central Services) Rules, 1960. It is well settled law that General Provident Fund (Central Services) Rules, 1960 came into operation on 1st April, 1960. It is well settled law that General Provident Fund (Central Services) Rules, 1960 came into operation on 1st April, 1960. As per Section 2(c) of General Provident Fund (Central Services) Rules 1960 wife, children and parents have been mentioned in first category. Admittedly petitioners fall within first category as defined in word 'family’. As the amount of General Provident Fund (GPF) already stood paid to the petitioners respondents No.5 to 7 are directed to file Civil Suit for refund of General Provident Fund amount paid to petitioners in view of the nomination Annexure R1 placed on record qua payment of General Provident Fund because nomination Annexure R1 qua payment of General Provident Fund is in dispute inter se parties. Point No.2 is decided accordingly. Final Order 10. In view of the above stated finding it is held (1) That petitioners are not entitled for payment of leave encashment amount. (2) It is held that petitioners are also not entitled for payment of death-cumretirement gratuity amount. (3) It is held that petitioners are entitled for payment of Group Insurance Scheme amount qua their shares only in the absence of nomination qua payment of Group Insurance Scheme. (4) It is held that respondents No.5 to 7 will be legally entitled to recover the amount from petitioners qua General Provident Fund on the basis of nomination mentioned in Annexure R1 by filing civil suit in competent Civil Court. Respondent No.5 will refund the amount of Group Insurance Scheme to the petitioners as per their share(s) within one month. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs. All miscellaneous application(s) are also disposed of.