JUDGMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. I.A. No. 5482 of 2018 This application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 43 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Mr. S.S. Choudhary, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 submits that each day's delay must be explained by the appellant. 3. Of course, the appellant must explain the delay caused in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal, however, while considering an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act the Court is also guided by stake of the parties, issues involved in the main appeal as well as conduct of the parties. 4. The appellant is aggrieved of the direction issued by the writ Court under which amount of gratuity shall be paid to the minor son from the second wife of the deceased employee. 5. Question raised by the appellant is substantial. 6. In view of the aforesaid fact, we are of the view that the appellant has made out a case for condonation of delay and accordingly, I.A. No. 5482 of 2018 is allowed. L.P.A No. 613 of 2017 7. With consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties, we have taken up the main appeal for hearing at this stage. 8. Two writ petitions; W.P.(S) No. 3007 of 2013 by the first wife of the deceased employee and W.P.(S) No. 6633 of 2013 by the second wife of the deceased employee, were filed seeking a direction upon the respondents for payment of post-retiral benefits accrued on death of the employee. 9. There is no dispute that the writ petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 3007 of 2013 is the first wife of the deceased employee namely, Varnwas Malto and Martha Murmu was his second wife. From the first wife the employee had three daughter and from the second wife one son, who was minor at the time of his death. 10. By now it is well-settled that the post-retiral benefits of an employee partake the character of property of an employee. Under section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, on death of a male Hindu dying intestate his properties shall be distributed amongst his legal heirs, first among his Class-I legal heirs. The legally-wedded wife and son of a male Hindu, may be from his second wife, are Class-I legal heirs. In “Rameshwari Devi Vs. Under section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, on death of a male Hindu dying intestate his properties shall be distributed amongst his legal heirs, first among his Class-I legal heirs. The legally-wedded wife and son of a male Hindu, may be from his second wife, are Class-I legal heirs. In “Rameshwari Devi Vs. State of Bihar and others” reported in (2000) 2 SCC 431 , dealing with a case on somewhat similar facts the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under; 14. “It cannot be disputed that the marriage between Narain Lal and Yogmaya Devi was in contravention of clause (i) of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act and was a void marriage. Under Section 16 of this Act, children of a void marriage are legitimate. Under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, property of a male Hindu dying intestate devolves firstly on heirs in clause (1) which include the widow and son. Among the widow and son, they all get shares (see Sections 8, 10 and the Schedule to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956). Yogmaya Devi cannot be described as a widow of Narain Lal, her marriage with Narain Lal being void. The sons of the marriage between Narain Lal and Yogmaya Devi being the legitimate sons of Narain Lal would be entitled to the property of Narain Lal in equal shares along with that of Rameshwari Devi and the son born from the marriage of Rameshwari Devi with Narain Lal. That is, however, the legal position when a Hindu male dies intestate. 11. Taking a clue from the observation in the case of “Rameshwari Devi”; however, we are concerned with the family pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity payments which are governed by the relevant rules, the learned counsel for respondent no. 6 has tried to contend that in view of Appendix-V Part-II para-3 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 the learned writ Court has rightly ordered that gratuity shall be paid to the minor son of the deceased employee. 12. A glance at the impugned order dated 13.09.2017 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3007 of 2013 with W.P.(S) No. 6633 of 2013 would reflect that the learned writ Court taking note of the decision in “Rameshwari Devi” has directed that the post-retiral benefits shall be paid to the first wife and the minor son from second wife of the deceased employee. 13. 13. The learned writ Court has directed as under; 13. “So far as payment of gratuity is concerned, here it would be apposite to refer to the Jharkhand Pension Rules, Appendix-V Part II Section 3. Nomination 3(1) xxx xxx xxx (2) A Government servant shall, as soon as he completes 5 year's qualifying service, make a nomination conferring on one or more persons the rights to receive any gratuity that may be sanctioned under sub-paragraphs (2) and (4) of paragraph 2 [and any gratuity which having become admissible to him under sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 1 has not been paid to him before death] Provided that if, at the time of making the nomination, the Government servant has a family, the nomination shall not be in favour of any person or persons other than the members of his family. (3) If a Government servant nominates more than one person under sub-paragraph (2), he shall specify in the nomination the amount or share payable to each of the nominees in such manner as to cover the whole of the gratuity.” As per the said provision, the amount of gratuity would be paid to the nominee concerned. In the instant case, the deceased-employee nominated the minor son of the second wife, namely, Ravi Markus Malto and therefore, the gratuity is to be paid to the nominee in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Rameshwari Devi (supra).” 14. The reason why the learned writ Court has ordered payment of gratuity to the minor son is that under para-3 of Part-II in Appendix-V, a government servant is required to make nomination within five years of his qualifying service conferring on one or more persons the right to “receive” gratuity. The deceased employee namely, Varnwas Malto has made nomination in favour of his son. By now it is well-settled that nomination to receive gratuity is just for the purpose of receiving the amount and nomination does not make the nominee exclusive owner of the property, that is, gratuity. A nominee does not get any right or title over the property or the estate of the deceased by virtue of nomination alone. It has been held that the nominee would only get the right to receive the amount and he holds the amount for benefit of the other heirs. A nominee does not get any right or title over the property or the estate of the deceased by virtue of nomination alone. It has been held that the nominee would only get the right to receive the amount and he holds the amount for benefit of the other heirs. A nominee receives the gratuity as a trustee of the property which he receives on behalf of the legal heirs amongst whom the property has to be distributed [refer, “Shipra Sengupta Vs. Mridul Sengupta and Others” reported in (2009) 10 SCC 680 ]. 15. As noticed hereinabove, the first wife and the minor son from the second wife of the deceased employee are the surviving Class-I legal heirs of the deceased employee, who accordingly to section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act shall be entitled for their respective share in the property of the deceased employee. Accordingly, the direction issued by the learned writ Court in paragraph no. 13 of the impugned order dated 13.09.2017 is modified to the above extent. 16. It is ordered that the amount of gratuity shall be distributed between the first wife and the minor son of the deceased employee. 17. This Letters Patent Appeal is allowed, in the aforesaid terms. 18. The respondents shall implement the order passed by the learned writ Court, with the aforesaid modification, within six weeks on production of a copy of this order.