JUDGMENT This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction on the respondents to release the entitled GPF amount in favour of her, who is also the nominee of the deceased Leishangthem Chaoba Singh. 2. The case of the petitioner is that her son Leishangthem Chaoba Singh was working as Engineer Assistant in the State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT) and he had nominated the petitioner as nominee in his GPF account and such record had never been changed before marriage or after the marriage. The petitioner’s son died on 25.9.2006 leaving behind the petitioner, his two wives and daughter. After the death of her son, the petitioner requested the authorities to release the GPF amount to her and in this regard, she had also submitted applications dated 5.7.2007, 5.10.2017 and finally on 16.11.2017 to the provident fund authorities. However, the said applications remain unattended and the authorities had failed to release the balance GPF amount to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. Respondents 3 and 4 have filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that respondents 3 and 4 only implements the decisions taken by the State authorities in various issues relating to maintenance of GPF, Pension and. etc. Therefore, making the Principal Accountant General/Accountant General responsible for a function in which they does not have any say, except for mere compliance, is not as per the provisions. Coming to the merits of the claim, respondents 3 and 4 stated that on receipt of the application for final withdrawal of GPF in respect of the deceased employee, it was ascertained that the claimant Brojeshwori Devi has not been nominated by the subscriber as per record maintained by the office of the respondents 3 and 4 and valid nominee certificate was also not found enclosed along with the application for withdrawal of the GPF amount. Accordingly, by a letter dated 3.4.2018, the respondents 3 and 4 sought for clarification about the right person to whom the GPF balance is payable from the Commissioner, SCERT followed by a reminder dated 17.8.2018. Accordingly, by a letter dated 3.4.2018, the respondents 3 and 4 sought for clarification about the right person to whom the GPF balance is payable from the Commissioner, SCERT followed by a reminder dated 17.8.2018. Pursuant to the letters of the respondents 3 and 4, the first respondent vide letters dated 30.6.2018 and 21.12.2018 instructed to settle the case as per the condition laid down by the Family Court, Manipur and accordingly, the authority for payment of GPF balance has been issued in favour of Brojeshwori Devi on 11.3.2019. It is stated that the status of the petitioner herein was recorded as “now dead” by the Family Court and as such the writ petition cannot be entertained, as the same has been filed by a dead person. As per the existing procedure and arrangement followed, the Principal Accountant General (A&E) is responsible for issuing authority of pension and other retirement benefits after exercising due diligence and exercising all necessary checks so that the amount as per entitlement of the petitioner is authorized. Thus, the respondents 3 and 4 complied with the requirement of the rules and the existing procedure which is not in violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, there is no act of illegal, unlawful and vindictive nature which deprives the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under the Constitution of India and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Mr. I.Lalitkumar, learned senior counsel, appearing for the petitioner submitted that despite the official records clearly indicate that the petitioner is the nominee of the deceased government servant, the respondent authorities, particularly respondents 3 and 4 have failed to act as per the rules and law and that payment of the GPF amount has been delayed by the respondent authorities, which caused financial hardships, sufferings and damages to the petitioner. He would submit that since there was dispute between wives of the deceased government employee, including the petitioner and daughter of the deceased, the payment of the entitled GPF amount was not released in favour of the petitioner. 5. He would submit that since there was dispute between wives of the deceased government employee, including the petitioner and daughter of the deceased, the payment of the entitled GPF amount was not released in favour of the petitioner. 5. Learned senior counsel further submitted that earlier the second wife has filed Matrimonial Case No.16 of 2009 before the Family Court, Manipur and by the judgment dated 2.11.2015, the Family Court passed an order to the extent of pension benefits excluding the GPF amount entitled to the petitioner and that the judgment of the Family Court had already attained finality as no one had preferred an appeal against the said judgment. He would also submit that the Family Court never decided and directed to distribute the GPF account to the family members of the deceased government employee as the said amount is to be paid according to the laws and rules. As such, the concerned authorities ought to release the GPF amount to the petitioner. However, the respondent authorities have failed to do so and the said act of the respondent authorities is arbitrary and abuse of power and unjust. In support, learned senior counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G.L.Bhatia v. Union of India and another, reported in (1999) 4 SCC 237. 6. Ms.Ch Sundari, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to claim the GPF amount even though she was nominated as nominee in the GPF account. Since the legally wedded wife of the deceased government employee is alive, she alone is entitled to receive the GPF amount and accordingly, the provident fund authorities disbursed the amount to her. 7. Mr.S.Jasobanta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and 4, submitted that the Principal Accountant General (A&E), after ascertaining the factual aspects of the matter, vide order dated 11.3.2019, authorized the first wife of the deceased namely Brojeshwori Devi to draw a sum of Rs.3,30,758/towards the available deposit upto 06/2006 with interest calculated upto 03/2017 and directed to disburse the amount in terms of Rule 33 of the GPF Rules and a certificate of disbursement of the amount furnished to the office of the Principal Account General. Since the amount in question has already been disbursed to the legally wedded wife, the petitioner has no right to claim the same and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. This Court considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 9. The grievance of the petitioner is that she being the nominee of the GPF account subscribed by her deceased son, she is entitled to receive the balance GPF amount lying in the account of the deceased. It is also the grievance of the petitioner that earlier the second wife of the deceased instituted a Matrimonial Case against her and the first wife before the Family Court, wherein a compromise was arrived at between them and they have mutually agreed to distribute the financial benefits of the deceased Chaoba Singh amounting to Rs.6,66,258/- equally, i.e., 1/4th share each among the second wife, daughter, the petitioner herein and the first wife of the deceased. 10. The petitioner herein claims that she being the nominee, she alone is entitled to receive the balance amount lying in the GPF account of the deceased. Such claim made by the petitioner is admittedly unacceptable. 11. In G.L.Bhatia (supra) cited by the petitioner, there was an estranged relationship between the spouses. Nomination of the wife, Central Government Servant was not in favour of the husband. He was also staying away from his wife. After the demise of the government servant, when the husband made a claim for disbursement of family pension under the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, agreeing with the authorities that since the nomination was not in favour of the husband, he would not be entitled to family pension, the Courts declined his request. Testing the correctness of the same, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “2. The sole question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant, who happens to be the husband of the deceased government servant, is entitled to family pension under the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules (for short “the rules”) notwithstanding the fact that the deceased wife in her nomination did not include the husband. The sole question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant, who happens to be the husband of the deceased government servant, is entitled to family pension under the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules (for short “the rules”) notwithstanding the fact that the deceased wife in her nomination did not include the husband. The forums below have taken the view agreeing with the authorities that since the nomination was not in favour of the husband and the husband was staying separate from the wife, the husband would not be entitled to family pension in question. This view cannot be sustained in view of the provisions contained in Rule 54 of the rules. It is too well settled that where rights of the parties are governed by Statutory provisions, the individual nomination contrary to the statute will not operate. 3. Under Rule 54 sub-rule 14(b)(i) the expression “family” has been defined thus: “54. (14)(b)(i) Wife in the case of a male government servant, or husband in the case of a female government servant. ....” 4. Sub-rule 8(ii) of Rule 54 states that: “54. (8)(ii) If a deceased government servant or pensioner leaves behind a widow or widower, the family pension shall become payable to the widow or widower, failing which to the eligible child.” 5. In the light of the aforesaid provisions and there being no divorce between the husband and wife even though they might be staying separately, the appellant husband would be entitled to the family pension in terms of the rules as noted aforesaid and the authorities, therefore, committed error in not granting family pension to the appellant relying upon the nomination made by the deceased wife of the appellant. The impugned order is, accordingly, set aside and this appeal stands allowed.” 12. Admittedly, in the case on hand, as stated supra, the deceased married Brojeshwori Devi and their marriage is still subsisting. The factum of the first marriage between the deceased and Brojeshwori Devi was admitted by the petitioner and the Family Court, in the case instituted by the second wife, has categorically held that Brojeshwori Devi is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Chaoba Singh and she has not been divorced till the death of the deceased. The factum of the first marriage between the deceased and Brojeshwori Devi was admitted by the petitioner and the Family Court, in the case instituted by the second wife, has categorically held that Brojeshwori Devi is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Chaoba Singh and she has not been divorced till the death of the deceased. Since the marriage of the deceased with the first wife is subsisting, the second marriage between the deceased and one Sagolsem (N) Leishangthem (O) Medha Devi is admittedly a void marriage. 13. It is well settled that if the nomination made by a government servant is contrary to the statutory provisions, the same would not operate. 14. The rule position is also clear that in the case of male subscriber, the wife or wives, parents, children, minor brothers, unmarried sisters, deceased son’s widow and children and where no parents of the subscriber is alive, a parental grandparent; 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 belong to be entitled to maintenance she shall henceforth be deemed to be no longer a member of the subscriber’s family in matter to which these rules relate, unless the subscriber subsequently intimates in writing to the Accounts Officer that she shall continue to be so regarded. 15. In the case on hand, after the marriage, the deceased ought to have nominated his legally wedded wife as nominee to the GPF account and the failure of the deceased government employee in not nominating his wife as nominee in the place of the earlier nominee, who is the mother, would not in any way accrue the rights in favour of the petitioner to receive the balance GPF amount lying in the account of the deceased exclusively as nominee. 16. Generally, if a male government servant is married and the marriage is subsisting, wife is the nominee and in the case of a female government servant, husband is the nominee. Likewise, if the deceased government servant or pensioner leaves behind a widow or widower, the family pension shall become payable to the widow or widower, failing which to the eligible child. Likewise, if the deceased government servant or pensioner leaves behind a widow or widower, the family pension shall become payable to the widow or widower, failing which to the eligible child. In respect of family pension, the Family Court, held that Brojeshwori Devi being the legally wedded wife shall withdraw the pension benefits of the deceased Chaoba Singh in her name and then she shall distribute the shares of the second wife, daughter, petitioner herein whenever she gets the pension benefits without fail within five days either by handing over personally or by depositing to the respective Bank accounts of the second wife and the petitioner herein or by way of convenience decided between the parties, later on. Since the said arrangement was made between the parties based on the compromise arrived at between them and the same has also been attained finality, this Court do not want to further delve upon the said aspect of the matter. 17. As could be seen from the array of parties, the petitioner has failed to implead the legally wedded wife of the deceased as party respondent in the writ petition. On the other hand, the petitioner impleaded the authorities as respondents. When the petitioner had participated in the earlier round of litigation instituted by the second wife of the deceased, she ought to have impleaded the legally wedded wife as party respondent in the present proceedings, as she is concerned with the claim made by the petitioner. 18. It is also evident that on 11.3.2019, the Principal Accountant General, after scrutinizing the material papers, issued an order authorizing Brojeshwori Devi, who is the legally wedded wife, to receive 100% amount lying in the GPF account of the deceased and the said order has not been challenged by the petitioner so far. The petitioner cannot claim exclusively the GPF amount in favour of her based on the nomination made by the deceased and as stated supra, such nomination is not a valid nomination after the marriage held between the deceased and Brojeshwori Devi and still subsisting. Since Brojeshwori Devi being the legally wedded wife, she alone is entitled to the balance GPF amount lying in the credit of the GPF account maintained by the deceased. The claim made by the petitioner in the writ petition is unsustainable in law. Since Brojeshwori Devi being the legally wedded wife, she alone is entitled to the balance GPF amount lying in the credit of the GPF account maintained by the deceased. The claim made by the petitioner in the writ petition is unsustainable in law. There is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is liable to be dismissed. 19. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.