Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 498 (MP)

Sharda Prasad Tripathi v. State of M. P.

2017-04-12

VANDANA KASREKAR

body2017
ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 30.9.2015 passed by respondent No.3. 2. The wife of the petitioner Late Smt. Lalita Devi was working on the post of Teacher in Junior High School, Sohagi, Block Teother, District Rewa. She had retired voluntary w.e.f. 31.7.2004. She died in the year 2005. After the death of the wife, the petitioner being a nominee of his wife is entitled to get pension and other retiral dues as the same has not paid to the petitioner, the petitioner has, therefore, filed a Writ Petition No.10269/2010 before this Court. 3. The State Government had filed reply in the said writ petition and submits that there are number of deficiencies in the pension paper given by the petitioner, therefore, unless and until these deficiencies are removed, petitioner is not entitled to get the said benefits. It has further been submitted that the amount of Rs.4,89,985/- towards full and final settlement of GPF, Late Smt. Lalita Devi has authorized vide letter dated 18.5.2011 for the payment to the petitioner. In light of the reply submitted by the respondents, the petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of vide order dated 25.6.2012 directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law. In pursuance of the directions issued by this Court, the petitioner has completed all the deficiencies before the District Education Officer, Rewa i.e. respondent No.2. 4. The respondent No.4 vide letter dated 27.1.2014 has informed the petitioner that they have paid the amount to respondent No.3, however, respondent No.4 sent a letter to respondent No.3 stating that if the nominee has not been made in the case, then succession certificate is required. As the amount has not been paid to the petitioner, the petitioner has, therefore, submitted a representation dated 24.11.2014. Respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 7.4.2015 has informed to respondent No.3 that without submitting a succession certificate the payment cannot be made to the petitioner. The respondent No.3 vide letter dated 30.9.2015 has directed the petitioner to submit a succession certificate for getting the payment of GPF. Being aggrieved by that order the petitioner has filed the present petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that the order dated 30.9.2015 is illegal and arbitrary. The respondent No.3 vide letter dated 30.9.2015 has directed the petitioner to submit a succession certificate for getting the payment of GPF. Being aggrieved by that order the petitioner has filed the present petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that the order dated 30.9.2015 is illegal and arbitrary. He submits that the petitioner is a nominee of his late wife and he is receiving the family pension being a nominee of the wife. He further submits that AGMP has already released the amount of GPF to the respondents, however, the respondents without any authority of law directed the petitioner to produce the succession certificate. He further submits that there is no provision under the law for producing the succession certificate for getting the amount of GPF. He further submits that the petitioner has already completed all the formalities for getting the amount of provident fund, however, without any rhyme or reasons the respondents have withhold the amount of GPF which is payable to the petitioner. 6. The respondents have filed their reply and in the reply the respondents have stated that as per the provision of rule 31(i) (b) of the Madhya Pradesh General Provident Fund Rules (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules), the petitioner is required to submit a proof that the deceased employee was his wife and there is no other family member who are also entitled to get share in the amount of GPF of late Smt. Lalita Devi. In such circumstances, the respondents have not committed any illegality in asking the petitioner to submit a succession certificate showing that he is a husband of deceased employee. It has further been submitted that as per rule 31(i)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh General Provident Fund Rules, if there is no nomination in favour of a member or members of the family of the subscriber subsists, the whole amount or the part thereof to which the nomination does not relate, as the case may be, shall notwithstanding any nomination purporting to be in favour of any person or persons other than a member or members of his family will be payable to the members of his family in equal shares. She further submits that the petitioner has not produced any nomination made by the deceased wife in his favour and, therefore, in absence of any nomination papers, the respondents have directed the petitioner to produce the succession certificate. 7. The petitioner has filed the rejoinder and submits that the petitioner is aged about 94 years and his all son and daughters are major. He further submits that the AGMP has issued P.P.O in which the name of the petitioner has been mentioned. As the family pension has been paid to the petitioner, therefore, now they cannot refuse the GPF only on the ground that no nominee has been mentioned in the service book. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From perusal of the record it reveals that the wife of the petitioner was working on the post of Teacher in the respondent-department. She died in the year 2005. After her death the petitioner being a nominee is entitled to get the pension and other retiral dues. As the same was not paid, the petitioner has, therefore, filed a Writ Petition No.10269/2010. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 25.6.2012 by issuing the following directions :- “Accordingly, without entering into the controversy on merits, it is directed that on the petitioner completing the formalities as indicated herein above in Paras 3 and 4 of the reply, respondents shall consider his claim in accordance to law and settle his claim in accordance to his entitlement within a period of two months from the date of compliance made by the petitioner.” After the order passed by this Court, the petitioner has completed all the formalities. In spite of removing all the deficiencies, the respondents have not paid the amount of GPF to the petitioner. In spite of the fact that the petitioner is getting the family pension being a nominee, respondent No.3 has issued an order dated 30.9.2015 thereby directing the petitioner to produce the succession certificate. 9. In spite of removing all the deficiencies, the respondents have not paid the amount of GPF to the petitioner. In spite of the fact that the petitioner is getting the family pension being a nominee, respondent No.3 has issued an order dated 30.9.2015 thereby directing the petitioner to produce the succession certificate. 9. The provision of rule 31(i) (b) of the Madhya Pradesh General Provident Fund Rules reads as under :- “30(i)(b) - If no such nomination in favour of a member or members of the family of the subscriber subsists, or if such nomination relates only to a part of the amount standing to his credit in the Fund, the whole amount or the part thereof to which the nomination does not relate, as the case may be, shall notwithstanding any nomination purporting to be in favour of any person of persons other than a member or members of his family, become payable to the members of his family in equal shares; Provided that no share shall be payable to - (1) sons who have attained legal majority; (2) sons of a deceased son who have attained legal majority; (3) married daughters whose husbands are alive; (4) married daughters of a deceased son whose husbands are alive; If there is any members of the family other than those specified in clauses (1), (2), (3) and (4).”� 10. From perusal of the said rules it reveals that if there is no nomination in favour of any member or members of the family then the amount shall be payable to the members of his family in equal shares provided that the major sons and married daughters whose husbands are alive are not entitled to get the amount. 11. Thus, from perusal of the said rules, it reveals that there is no provision under the Rules for producing the succession certificate in order to get the amount of GPF. 11. Thus, from perusal of the said rules, it reveals that there is no provision under the Rules for producing the succession certificate in order to get the amount of GPF. In the present case, as already observed that there is no nomination in favour of the petitioner, so far as, the amount of GPF is concerned, therefore, in such circumstances, he can file an affidavit to the effect that he is the husband of the deceased employee and there is no other family members who are entitled to get the share in the amount of GPF and the respondents after considering the said affidavit can released the amount of G.P.F in favour of the petitioner. 12. Thus, in light of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 30.9.2015 is hereby set aside and the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to submit an affidavit to the respondents to the effect that he is husband of the deceased employee and there is no other family members were also entitled to get share in the amount of GPF of late Smt. Lalita Devi Tripathi. The sons and daughters of the petitioner also directed to submit an affidavit before the authority that they are not interested in receiving any amount of GPF of late Smt. Lalita Devi. Such affidavits will be filed within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. On receiving such affidavits and after verifying the contents of the said, the respondents will release the amount of GPF towards the petitioner within a period of 45 days thereof along with interest @ 6% per annum. 13. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs.