JUDGMENT : Mr. Arun Bhansali, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking a direction to the respondents to immediately release the amount of GPF, on account of death of husband of petitioner No. 1 along with interest. 2. The husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioners No. 2 & 3- Rajak Mohammad while in service of the respondents, working as Helper Gr.I, died on 01.07.2013. 3. The petitioner No. 1- wife of the deceased filed an application with the respondents seeking benefits to which she/the family was entitled. The petitioner No. 1 also applied and was granted the guardianship certificate under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (‘the Act’), by the District Judge, Jodhpur Metro by its order dated 06.02.2015, the certificate in this regard has been placed on record as Annexure-2. While granting the certificate the district court specifically indicated as under: ÞizkfFkZuh Jherh ‘kckuk csxe vo;Ldx.kksa usgk ,oa jlsy dks muds firk ds e`R;qijkar muds foHkkx ds feyus okyh lsok ifjykHk dh jkf’k vo;Ldx.kksa dh vksj ls izkIr dj ldsxh ,oa mDr jkf’k dks vo;Ldksa ds ikyu iks”k.k ,oa i<+kbZ vkfn ij [kpZ djsxhA izkfFkZuh vo;Ldksa ds fgrksa ds foijhr dksbZ dk;Z ugha djsxh] vo;Ldx.kksa dk Hkj.k iks”k.k ,oa /;ku ls ns[kHkky djsxhA vo;Ldksa dks feyus okyh jkf’k vius dke esa ugha ysxh cfYd vo;Ldx.kksa ij gh O;; djsxh rFkk vk;&O; dk forj.k izfro”kZ tuojh ekg esa vnkyr gt esa izLrqr djsxhAÞ 4. Based on the said guardianship certificate as well as the nomination, which was filed by deceased-Rajak Mohammad, pertaining to the GPF amount, wherein, he had indicated his son-Altaf Khan as nominee qua 100% of his dues as well as the fact that proceedings were initiated for including the name of petitioner No. 1 who appears to be second wife of deceased-Rajak Mohammad for payment of the amount of GPF, the respondents by their communication dated 02.05.2016 (Annex./5) raised the following objections: “The final payment case of GPF was weighted by L.O./AEN (Legal) & he advised to obtained the successor certificate as the D.J. Court, Jodhpur is not showing the proportion of amount and mode of disbursement & entitlement.” 5. It was, inter alia, indicated that the certificate does not show the proportion of amount and mode of disbursement and entitlement and, consequently, the amount was not paid to the petitioners. 6. It was, inter alia, indicated that the certificate does not show the proportion of amount and mode of disbursement and entitlement and, consequently, the amount was not paid to the petitioners. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that once the guardianship certificate has been issued by the Competent Civil Court, the respondents cannot raise a further requirement of proportion of amount and mode of disbursement as has been sought to be done by them. 7. It is further submitted that once the certificate has been issued and conditions therein have been imposed, the petitioner No. 1 is bound to follow those conditions and respondents on account of the their objections cannot deny payment of amount of GPF. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that on account of the fact that the certificate did not indicate the entitlement and the opinion given by the LO/AEN (Legal), the amount has not been paid. 9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 10. A bare perusal of the guardianship certificate (Annex./2) part of which has been quoted hereinbefore indicates that the Civil Court has specifically appointed petitioner No. 1 as guardian for the purpose of receiving the service benefits and further conditions regarding its use has been imposed, which have been accepted by the petitioner. Once the Competent Civil Court has granted the guardianship certificate, the respondents cannot thereafter require the petitioner to seek further directions from the Court. 11. So far as the proportion of amount is concerned, the fact that no proportion therein has been indicated would necessarily mean that the same has to be disbursed in the equal proportion. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that this Court may impose conditions qua the utilization of the amount. In view of the fact that the Competent Civil Court has already passed directions, no further directions are required to be made by this Court in this regard. 13. In view of the above, the requirement indicated by the respondents for payment of GPF to the petitioners cannot be sustained and the same is, therefore, set aside. 14. The respondents are directed to make payment of the amount of GPF in accordance with law along with interest as payable under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Direction given as above.