JUDGMENT : Sujoy Paul J. 1. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution with a prayer to set aside the order Annexure P/11 with a further prayer to direct the respondents to release all dues of deceased Ku. Deepa Saxena in favour of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is real sister of Ku. Deepa Saxena who was working as UDT in the respondent No. 3/school. Ku. Deepa Saxena was unmarried and filled-up the nomination in favour of the petitioner on 15.10.1999 (Annexure P/1). The petitioner also gave her consent on 6.10.2003 in relation to insurance-cum-saving scheme of 2003. The present petitioner was nominated by Ku. Deepa Saxena for getting benefit of this scheme also. 3. Shri Ankit Saxena contends that petitioner's sister nominated the petitioner for grant of family pension and other retiral dues including the amount arising out of Group Insurance Scheme of 1995. It is urged that Ku. Deepa Saxena died on 18.08.2012 and accordingly petitioner preferred representation for releasing the said dues in her favour being the sole nominee. Leaned counsel for the petitioner submits that the remaining brothers and sisters of the petitioner and deceased Ku. Deepa Saxena filed their NOC (Annexure P/8). The relevant documents were forwarded by respondent No. 3 to Senior Accounts Officer of AG Office, Gwalior by communication Annexure P/10. However, by order dated 22.1.2013 (Annexure P/11) it was directed that petitioner may bring succession certificate from the court of competent jurisdiction so that amount in question can be disbursed in favour of the petitioner. 4. Criticizing this order, it is urged that the provident fund of deceased is covered by M.P. General Provident Fund Rules,1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). By taking this court to various provisions of the Rules, Shri Saxena contended that in view of the fact that Ku. Deepa Saxena had no family and she gave nomination in favour of the petitioner, no succession certificate is required. He placed reliance on the judgment of Gwalior Bench in the case of Girijabai w/o Raghuwar Dayal v. State of M.P. and others-2008(3) MPLJ-407 and judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Vidyadhari and others v. Sukhrana Bai and others- AIR 2008 SC 1420 . 5. Shri Girish Kekre, GA relied on various paragraphs of the return. He contends that the petitioner is married sister of deceased Ku. Deepa Saxena. 5. Shri Girish Kekre, GA relied on various paragraphs of the return. He contends that the petitioner is married sister of deceased Ku. Deepa Saxena. The petitioner does not fall within the ambit of the definition of "family". Hence the aforesaid amount can be released in favour of the petitioner only on production of succession certificate issued by the competent authority. He also placed reliance on Rule 32(1) r/w section 4(1) of the Provident Fund Act, 1925 (XIV of 1925). 6. I have heard the parties at length and perused the record. 7. Rule 2(c) reads as under:- 2. "Section.2(c) -" "Family" means - (i) in the case of a male subscriber, the wife or wives and children of a subscriber, and the widow, or widows, and children of a deceased son of the subscriber: 2. Provided that if a subscriber proves that his wife has been judicially separated from him or has ceased under the customary law of the community to which she belongs to be entitled to maintenance she shall henceforth be deemed to be no longer a member of the subscriber's family in matters to which these rules relate, unless the subscriber subsequently indicates by express notification in writing to the Account Officer that she shall continue to be so regarded; 2. (ii) in the case of a female subscriber, the husband and children of the subscriber, and the widow, or widows, and children of a deceased son of the subscriber" (Emphasis Supplied) 8. The plain reading of the definition of "Family" makes it clear that in case of female subscriber, husband and children of subscriber and widow or children of deceased son of subscriber fall within ambit of "family". In the present case, subscriber was an unmarried person and therefore, undoubtedly the present petitioner is not part of her family within the meaning of said Rules. 9. Rule 8 deals with nomination, the relevant portion of this Rule reads as under:- 8. Nominations. In the present case, subscriber was an unmarried person and therefore, undoubtedly the present petitioner is not part of her family within the meaning of said Rules. 9. Rule 8 deals with nomination, the relevant portion of this Rule reads as under:- 8. Nominations. - [(1) (a) A subscriber to the General Provident Fund shall, as soon as may be after joining the Fund, send to the Head of Officer, a nomination conferring on one or more persons the right to receive the amount that may stand to his credit in the fund, in the event of his death before that amount has become payable or having become payable has not been paid: Provided that if at the time of making the nominations the subscriber has a family the nomination shall not be in favour of any person or persons other than the members of his family. (Emphasis Supplied) 10. The proviso to Rule 8 shows that nomination cannot be given in favour of a person, who is not a part of the family. The necessary corollary is that nomination can be given in favour of any person, who is not a part of family if subscriber does not have any family. Admittedly, subscriber had given nomination in favour of present petitioner, which is in consonance with Rule 8 aforesaid. The respondents have insisted for production of succession certificate by taking assistance of Rule 32(1) of the Rule read with section 4(1)(c)(1) of Provident Fund Act, 1925 (hereinafter called as PF Act). 11. Rule 32 (1) reads as under:- 32. (1) When the amount standing to the credit of a subscriber in the Fund becomes payable, it shall be the duty of the Accounts Officer to make payment, as provided in Section 4 of the Provident Fund Act, 1925. (Emphasis Supplied) 12. The plain reading of this Rule makes it clear that an account officer is under an obligation to make payment to the eligible person as per section 4 of the PF Act. It is apt to quote Rule 31(ii) which reads as under:- 31. (Emphasis Supplied) 12. The plain reading of this Rule makes it clear that an account officer is under an obligation to make payment to the eligible person as per section 4 of the PF Act. It is apt to quote Rule 31(ii) which reads as under:- 31. On the death of a subscriber before the amount standing to his credit has become payable, or where the amount has become payable, before payment has been made- (ii) When the subscriber leaves no family, if a nomination made by him in accordance with the provisions of rule 8 or of the corresponding rule heretofore in force in favour of any person or persons subsists, the amount standing to his credit in the Fund or the part thereof to which the nomination relates, shall become payable to his nominee or nominees in the proportion specified in the nomination. (Emphasis Supplied) 13. As per this provision, where subscriber leaves no family and nomination is made in consonance with provisions of Rule 8, the amount shall become payable to his nominee as per specification made in the nomination. 14. The relevant portion of Section 4 of PF Act reads as under:- 4. Provisions regarding repayments. (Emphasis Supplied) 13. As per this provision, where subscriber leaves no family and nomination is made in consonance with provisions of Rule 8, the amount shall become payable to his nominee as per specification made in the nomination. 14. The relevant portion of Section 4 of PF Act reads as under:- 4. Provisions regarding repayments. - (1) When under the rules of any Government or Railway Provident Fund the sum standing to the Credit of any subscriber or depositor, or the balance thereof after the making of any deduction authorised by this act, has become payable, the officer whose duty it is to make the payment shall pay the sum or balance, as the case may be, to the subscriber or depositor, or, if he is dead, shall- (a) If the sum or balance, or any part thereof, vests in a dependent under the provisions of Section 3, pay the same to the dependent or to such person as may be authorised by law to receive payment on his behalf; or (b) if the whole sum or balance, as the case may be, does not exceed five thousand rupees, pay the same, or any part thereof, which is not payable under clause (a), to any person nominated to receive it under the rules of the Fund, or, if no person is so nominated, to any person appearing to him to be otherwise entitled to receive it; or (c) in the case of any sum or balance, or any part thereof, which is not payable to any person under clause (a) or clause (b) pay the same,- (i) to any person nominated to receive it under the rules of the Fund, on production by such person of probate or the letters of administration evidencing the grant to him of administration to the estate of the deceased or a certificate granted under the Succession Certificate Act, 1889 (VII of 1889), or under the Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827, entitling the holder thereof to receive payment of such sum, balance or part, or (ii) where no person is so nominated, to any person who produces such probate, letters of certificate: (Emphasis Supplied) The bare perusal of this provision makes it clear that case of present petitioner is not covered under section 4(1)(a) of the Act. For applying sub clause (b), the only impediment is that sum or amount payable should not exceed Rs. For applying sub clause (b), the only impediment is that sum or amount payable should not exceed Rs. 5000/-. Otherwise, the petitioner's case could have fallen within ambit of sub clause (b). Sub clause (c)(i) provides that nominated person can receive fund on production of probate or letters of administration. Sub clause (ii) provides that when no person is so nominated, amount can be given to any person who produces such probate/letters of administration. 15. The relevant portion of section 5 of PF Act reads as under:- (5) Rights of nominees. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force or in any disposition, whether testamentary or otherwise, by a subscriber to, or depositor in, a Government or Railway Provident Fund of the sum standing to his credit in the Fund, or of any part thereof, where any nomination, duly name in accordance with the rules of the Fund, purports to confer upon any person the right to receive the whole or any part of such sum on the death of the subscriber or depositor occurring before the sum has become payable or before the sum, having become payable, has been paid, the said person shall, on the death as aforesaid of the subscriber or depositor, become entitled, to the exclusion of all other persons to receive such sum or part thereof, as the case may be, unless - (a) such nomination is at any time varied by another nomination made in like manner or expressly cancelled by notice given in the manner and to the authority prescribed by those rules, or (b) such nomination at any time becomes invalid by reason of the happening of some contingency specified therein, and if the said person predeceases the subscriber or depositor, the nomination shall, so far as it relates to the tight conferred upon the said person, become void and of no effect; Provided that were provision has been duly made in the nomination in accordance with the rules of the Fund, conferring upon some other person such right instead of the person deceased, such right shall, upon the deceased as aforesaid of the said person, pass to such other person. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Succession Act, 1952 or the Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827, any person, who becomes entitled as aforesaid, may be granted a certificate under that Act, or that Regulation, as the case may be, entitling him to receive payment of such sum or part, and such certificate shall not be deemed to be invalidated or superseded by any grant to any other person of probate or letters of administration to the estate of the deceased. (Emphasis Supplied) It is important to note that section 5 begins with a non obstante clause. The proviso to section 5 in no uncertain terms makes it clear that when nomination is duly made in accordance with the Rule conferring some person any right, the said right should be passed on to such person. Interestingly, the language used in Section 5 is that "notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force". Section 4(c)(i) on the one hand provides that nominated person is required to produce the probate or letters of administration, whereas section 5 provides that such nominated person in whose favour the valid nomination exists, is entitled to get the requisite amount/sum. In my judgment, since section 5 employs the language which begins with a non obstante clause, it will have an overriding effect on other provisions of PF Act including Section 4 thereof. Sub section (2) of Section 5 also begins with a non obstante clause. It has over-riding effect over the Indian Succession Act, 1952 or Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827. It is apt to note that law makers have used the words "any person, who becomes entitled as aforesaid, may be granted certificate under that Act, or that Regulation, as the case may be, entitling him to receive payment of such sum......" It is apposite to note here that law makers in their wisdom decided to use words "may be granted" This provision is normally directory in nature. 16. The Apex Court in (1972) 3 SCC 156 (Sahdara Devi v. Govt. of India) opined that "normally, the word "may" is used to grant a discretion and not to indicate mandatory direction". In the context the words "may be granted" are used in sub section 2 of Section 5, in my view, the need to produce succession certificate is directory in nature. of India) opined that "normally, the word "may" is used to grant a discretion and not to indicate mandatory direction". In the context the words "may be granted" are used in sub section 2 of Section 5, in my view, the need to produce succession certificate is directory in nature. At the cost of repeatition since section 5 has over-riding effect on "any law", the petitioner cannot be deprived from benefit of nomination on the ground of non-production of succession certificate or letter of administration. 17. This Court in 1997 (1) MPLJ 189 (Oriental Fire & General Insurance Company Limited. v. Smt. Shahjehan Begum) considered the impact of section 95(5) of Motor Vehicle Act (4 of 1939). Section 95(5) also begins with non obstante clause and provides that "notwithstanding anything elsewhere containing in any law...." This court opined that non obstante clause would cover each and every kind of law including previous section 95(2)(b) of MV Act, 1939. Thus the word "any law" includes the very same law (PF Act) in which section 5 finds place. 18. The Supreme Court in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sanjay (2014)9 SCC 772 held as under:- "It is well known that a non obstante clause is a legislative device which is usually employed to give overriding effect to certain provisions over some contrary provisions that may be found either in the same enactment or some other enactment, that is to say, to avoid the operation and effect of all contrary provisions." (Emphasis Supplied) 19. Putting it differently, section 5 will have over-riding effect on other law as well as on PF Act to which it is a part. The harmonious construction of Rule 8, 32 and section 4 and 5 would be that in cases where valid nomination as per Rule exists in favour of a nominee, the requirement to produce succession certificate would be directory in nature. It can be insisted upon when there are valid reasons for doing so. The said certificate cannot be asked as a matter of routine/compulsion. If there is any doubt regarding validity/genuineness of nomination etc., the nominee may be called upon to produce such succession certificate. In the present case, the existence of valid nomination is not in doubt. It can be insisted upon when there are valid reasons for doing so. The said certificate cannot be asked as a matter of routine/compulsion. If there is any doubt regarding validity/genuineness of nomination etc., the nominee may be called upon to produce such succession certificate. In the present case, the existence of valid nomination is not in doubt. For harmoniously constructing the provisions, the entire statute is to be read as a whole, section by section, clause by clause, phrase by phrase and word by word. The relevant provisions must be read harmoniously (See (2007) 10 SCC 528 (Deewan Singh v. Rajendra Prasad Ardevi). After undertaking the aforesaid exercise, in my view the plausible interpretation would be such which gives a right to the rightful beneficiary/nominee. 20. In 1987 (1) SCC 424 (Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd.) the Apex Court held that "Interpretation must depend on the text and the context. They are the bases of interpretation. One may well say if the text is the texture, context is what gives the colour. Neither can be ignored. Both are important. That interpretation is best which makes the textual interpretation match the contextual. A statute is best interpreted when we know why it was enacted" 21. In (1985)2 SCC 370 (Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar), the Apex Court held that "Sometimes the law which is meant to impart justice and fair play to the citizens or people of the country is so torn and twisted by a morbid interpretative process that instead of giving haven to the disappointed and dejected litigants it negatives their well established rights in law." 22. Similarly, in (1977)2 SCC 670 (Fatehchand Himmatlal v. State of Maharashtra), the Apex Court opined that "The healing art of harmonious construction, not the tempting game of hair-splitting, promotes the rhythm of the rule of law." 23. Shri Krishna Iyer. J in his characteristic way in 1978 (2) SCC 213 (Banglore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A Rajappa) held that "Statutory construction is not a petrified process and the old bottle may, to the extent language and realism permit be filled with new wine. Of course, the bottle should not break or lose shape." 24. Apart from above, M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 also provides the manner and method in which nomination can be made. Of course, the bottle should not break or lose shape." 24. Apart from above, M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 also provides the manner and method in which nomination can be made. As per Rule 46 of the said Rules, nomination can be made in favour of any person other than member of the family. This view is taken by the this Court in Girijabai Bai (supra) by following the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vidyadhari (supra). 25. In the light of the aforesaid legal position, in my opinion the respondents have erred in directing the petitioner to produce succession certificate. The impugned order Annexure P-11 therefore cannot be countenanced. The said order is accordingly set aside. The respondents are directed to release the entire amount arising out of nominations in favour of the petitioner within 45 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Petition is allowed. No cost.