JUDGMENT : The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the letter dated 03.01.2017 whereby the petitioner has been directed to produce succession certificate for settlement of terminal benefits in respect of her deceased husband. Further prayer has been made for quashing the letter dated 27.02.2017/02.03.2017 issued by the Area Manager (NPD), FCI, Kolkata in pursuance of the letter dated 03.01.2017 issued by the Assistant General Manager (IR-L), For General Manager (R), Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’] whereby it was directed to obtain succession certificate from the petitioner to settle all dues to be paid in respect of her deceased husband. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to make payment of death-cum-terminal benefits of her husband, who died in harness, as well as to pay other consequential benefits, which is legally payable to her. 2. No one appears on behalf of the respondent No.2 despite valid service of notice upon her. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s husband, namely, Late Sambhu Singh was in service of the Corporation, who died in harness on 10.02.2014. The petitioner’s name being the wife was mentioned as nominee in the nomination form of his service record. Moreover, the medical card issued by the Corporation in favour of the petitioner bore her name and photograph together with the photograph of her deceased husband. The petitioner came to know that the respondent No.2 raised objection against release of terminal benefits of the deceased employee claiming herself to be his wife. Thereafter, the petitioner received letter dated 27.02.2017/02.03.2017 issued by the respondent No.1 whereby she was directed to produce succession certificate forthwith so that the claim of terminal benefits of the deceased employee could be settled and paid. The petitioner vide representation dated 18.02.2019 requested the respondent No.1-Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, Kolkata to release terminal benefits of the deceased employee in her favour as she was his legally married wife as well as his nominee. Subsequently, the petitioner approached various authorities of the respondent-Corporation on several occasions for settlement of terminal benefits of the deceased employee, however, no positive action was taken in this regard. It is well settled that the 'Nomination' indicates the hand which is authorized to receive the amount and only ‘a nominee’ can give a valid discharge. Subsequently, the petitioner approached various authorities of the respondent-Corporation on several occasions for settlement of terminal benefits of the deceased employee, however, no positive action was taken in this regard. It is well settled that the 'Nomination' indicates the hand which is authorized to receive the amount and only ‘a nominee’ can give a valid discharge. Even if it is presumed that the deceased husband had married another woman during continuation of marriage with the petitioner, the second marriage will be null and void in view of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Otherwise also, the petitioner being the nominee is the only authorised person to receive terminal benefits of the deceased employee. 4. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the petitioner is not the sole claimant of terminal benefits payable in respect of Late Sambhu Singh. Though the petitioner was shown as nominee in the service record including the medical card and the nomination form of the deceased employee, however, the respondent No.2 has also claimed herself to be his second wife. She has also claimed that the deceased employee was the biological father of her two sons and they are also entitled to get the terminal benefits to be paid by the Corporation in respect of the deceased employee. Even if nomination was made a ground by the petitioner for releasing the terminal benefits in her favour, the same could not be released as the respondent No.2 produced an Indemnity Bond executed between her and the petitioner notarised before the Notary Public at Alipore, District-South 24 Parganas on 07.09.2016 to the effect that both of them would distribute the terminal benefits in the ratio of 50:50. The respondent No.2 also submitted another affidavit sworn before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Alipore, District-South 24 Parganas by her on behalf of her minor children as well as the major children of the petitioner born out of the wedlock of the deceased employee whereby they agreed to surrender their claims in favour of their respective step-mothers i.e. the petitioner and the respondent No.2. Since the petitioner’s claim was seriously disputed, she was directed to produce succession certificate vide impugned letter. The respondent-Corporation is the custodian of the post death benefits payable in respect of the deceased employee and its intention is to ensure payments to a right person. 5. Since the petitioner’s claim was seriously disputed, she was directed to produce succession certificate vide impugned letter. The respondent-Corporation is the custodian of the post death benefits payable in respect of the deceased employee and its intention is to ensure payments to a right person. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant materials available on record. Though the respondent-Corporation has admitted that the petitioner’s husband was an employee of the respondent-Corporation and the name of the petitioner finds place as his wife in the service record as well as in the nomination form, however, his death-cum-terminal benefits has not been released in her favour on the ground that the respondent No.2 claimed herself to be his second wife and there is an agreement between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 to the effect that they will distribute the terminal benefits of the deceased employee in the ratio of 50:50. Since there is a dispute as to who is the actual claimant to receive the terminal benefits of the deceased employee, the petitioner has been directed to produce succession certificate. 6. I have perused the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarbati Devi & Anr. Vs. Smt. Usha Devi reported in (1984) 1 SCC 424 as has been relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner wherein it has been held that mere nomination made under Section 39 of the Life Insurance Act, 1938 does not have the effect of conferring on the nominee any beneficial interest in the amount payable under the life insurance policy on the death of the assured. The nomination only indicates the hand which is authorized to receive the amount on payment of which the insurer gets a valid discharge of its liability under the policy. The amount, however, can be claimed by the heirs of the assured in accordance with law of succession governing them. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner puts reliance upon a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balwantbhai B. Patel Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in (2009) 10 SCC 684 wherein it has been held that the amount under any head can be received by the nominee, but the amount can be claimed by the heirs of the deceased in accordance with law. 8. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in (2009) 10 SCC 684 wherein it has been held that the amount under any head can be received by the nominee, but the amount can be claimed by the heirs of the deceased in accordance with law. 8. This Court finds that the action of the respondent-Corporation in not releasing the terminal benefits of the deceased employee in favour of the petitioner despite being the nominee in his service record, is in the teeth of the proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments. Even if the contention of the respondent-Corporation to the extent that the respondent No.2 was claiming herself to be the second wife of the deceased employee and there was an agreement between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 that they would apportion the terminal benefits, is taken into consideration, then also the respondent-Corporation was duty bound to release the said benefit in favour of the petitioner being the nominee of the deceased employee which could subsequently to be apportioned between them in accordance with law. 9. This Court is of the considered view that the respondent-Corporation has failed to discharge its statutory obligation in not releasing the terminal benefits of the deceased employee to the petitioner and hence it is liable to pay the admissible death-cum-terminal benefits of the deceased employee along with appropriate interest from the date of his death till the date of deposit of the said amount before the Registrar General of this Court. 10. The record suggests that pursuant to the order dated 14.06.2021 passed by a Bench of this Court, the respondent-Corporation has deposited an amount of Rs.41,99,731/- in respect of the deceased employee by way of a Demand Draft dated 22.07.2021 before the Registrar General of this Court. It appears from the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-Corporation that though the interest has been calculated on the Gratuity amount of the deceased employee for the period from 11.02.2014 to 16.07.2021 (i.e. for the period after death of the deceased employee and before sanctioning of Gratuity), however, the interest on the CPF amount has not been calculated for the year 2019-20 and 2020-21 claiming that Circular No. CPF/41/Headquarters dated 27.09.2019 limits interest payments to three years from the date of separation as a member of CPF Plan. It further appears that the interest on other payments such as; Benevolent Fund and PL Encashment has also not been deposited by the respondent-Corporation. 11. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned letters dated 03.01.2017 as well as dated 27.02.2017/02.03.2017 (Annexure-3 series to the writ petition) issued by the Assistant General Manager (IR-L) to General Manger (R), Food Corporation of India and the Area Manager (NPD), FCI, Kolkata respectively cannot sustain in law and the same are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent-Corporation is also directed to pay the interest @ 6% per annum on the Benevolent Fund, PL Encashment as well as on the CPF amount for the year 2019-20 and 2020-21 within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 12. Since the respondent-Corporation has already deposited the Bank Draft of Rs.41,99,731/- dated 22.07.2021 drawn in favour of the Registrar General of this Court pursuant to the order dated 14.06.2021, the Registrar General is directed to get a fresh Demand Draft prepared in the name of the petitioner for the amount deposited before him with respect to the deceased employee along with the interest accrued on that amount and to hand over the same to her after due identification. 13. The present writ petition is accordingly allowed.