JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the letter dated 27.01.11 and 02.04.12 issued by the CMPF Authorities whereby the petitioner has been directed to produce the succession certificate for receiving the amount payable under the CMPF on account of service of Late Upendra Kumar Singh and further direction has been sought upon the respondent to release the CMPF dues as per the nomination submitted by the deceased employee namely late Upendra Kumar Singh, which has been accepted by the CMPF authorities. 3. From the pleadings and argument, it appears that uncle of the petitioner was an employee of the respondent-BCCL, who had joined service on 30.01.1980 and had retired on 25.11.2008 on attaining the age of superannuation. While he was in service, he had nominated Smt. Usha Devi-wife as nominee for receiving CMPF amount. Further from the service excerpts, it appears that Usha Devi and three others namely Prabhat Kumar Singh, Prashant Kumar Singh and Kiran Kumari have been shown as dependant. Usha Devi died during service period of the deceased employee. Thereafter, it had been disclosed by the deceased employee during the service period that the persons named therein except wife are near relatives and as such, they are not family members. An application had been made by the deceased employee, which was duly received by the CMPF Authorities on 19.09.2007 for changing the nomination as his wife had already died. By the said application, it had been stated that his nephew namely Prabhat Kumar Singh is only my nominee to receive the entire amount of CMPF. Upon receipt of such application, query has been made by the CMPF authorities from the employer-BCCL. After no objection has been given by the authorities of the BCCL, recommendation of nomination has been accepted and change has been made. 4. Relevant Clause 62 of the CMPF Scheme is quoted hereinbelow: “62. Nomination-(1) Each member, of if he is a minor his guardian shall make in his declaration in Form ‘A’ (to be submitted in duplicate) a nomination conferring the right to receive the amount that may stand to his credit in the Fund in the event of his death before the amount standing to his credit has become payable, or where the amount has become payable, before payment has been made. (2) A member, or if he is a minor his guardian, may in his nomination distribute the amount that may stand to his credit in the Fund amongst his nominees at his own discretion. (3) If a member has a family at the time of making a nomination, the nomination shall be in favour of one or more persons belonging to his family. Any nomination made by such member in favour of a person not belonging to his family shall be invalid. “Provided that any nomination made by a member before his/her marriage in favour of his/her dependant parents shall be deemed to be invalid from the day on which the member marries; and the member shall make a fresh nomination.” (4) If at the time of making a nomination the member has no family, the nomination may be in favour of any person or persons but if the member subsequently acquires a family, such nomination shall forthwith be deemed to be invalid and the member shall make a fresh nomination in favour of one or more persons belonging to his family. “[(4A) Where the nomination is wholly or partly in favour of a minor, the member shall for the proposes of the said Scheme appoint a major member of his family as defined in clause (h) of paragraph 2, to be the guardian of the minor nominee(s) in the event of the member predeceasing the nominee and the guardian so appointed. Provided that where there is no major person in the family, the member may at his discretion appoint any other person to be a guardian of the minor nominee(s).] (5) A nomination made under sub-paragraph (1) [or the appointment of it guardian made under sub-paragraph (4A)] may at any time be modified by a member, or if he is a minor by his guardian, after giving a written notice of his intention of doing so (in Form ‘M’ Revised; ‘M’ [or in Form ‘MM’] as the case may be) [ to be submitted in duplicate] annexed hereto. If the nominee predeceases the member, the interest of the nominee shall revert to the member who may make a fresh nomination in respect of such interest. (6) A nomination or its modification shall take effect to the extent that it is valid on the date on which it is received by the Commissioner.” 5. If the nominee predeceases the member, the interest of the nominee shall revert to the member who may make a fresh nomination in respect of such interest. (6) A nomination or its modification shall take effect to the extent that it is valid on the date on which it is received by the Commissioner.” 5. From perusal of above Clause, it is evident that if there is any family member alive, any nomination made to the outsider is not valid. Family means husband, wife, children and parents. If no family member is available, then as per sub-clause 62(4), nomination can be made in favour of any person. 6. Admittedly in the present case, deceased employee had declared in his life time that he has no family member and on that strength, he had made nominee of the petitioner, who is his nephew. Admittedly nephew does not come under the definition of family, but nomination is valid as per Clause 62(4) of the CMPF Scheme. 7. After the death of the employee, when an application has been made for refund, this objection has been raised. It is an admitted position that during life time, service excerpts was available, but in spite of declaration of deceased employee, nomination has been challenged. Deceased employee himself had declared that there were no family members. Further defence taken by the CMPF regarding the complaint made by a person is also of no consequence as the complainant himself has not stated regarding existence of any family member. In such a scenario, demand of succession certificate is not justified, especially in view of the fact that other retiral dues had been released in favour of the petitioner. In view of the above discussion, the impugned letter dated 27.01.11 and 02.04.12 demanding succession certificate is wholly unjustified and contrary to the CMPF Scheme and the same are, hereby, quashed. 8. Respondent-CMPF is directed to release the provident fund amount in favour of the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition stands allowed.