Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 590 (UTT)

Malvika Mahesh v. State Bank of India

2023-10-16

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2023
JUDGMENT : (Ravindra Maithani, J.) : By means of the instant petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs :- (i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.1 to forthwith release PPF account holding bearing No. 0000011178727351 maintained at the State Bank of India, Kaladhungi Road Branceh, Haldwani, Nainital by the father of the petitioner, namely, Dr. Mahesh Kumar, in favour of the petitioner. (ii) issue any other suitable writ, order or direction in favour of petitioner, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the present circumstances of the case. (iii) award cost of writ petition in favour of petitioner. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that her father died on 22.06.2022. The petitioner is the sole legal heir of her father Late Dr. Mahesh Kumar. She was issued a succession certificate by Deputy District Magistrate, Haldwani. Her name has been mutated in the Revenue records also. The petitioner was nominee in a bank account maintained by her father in Almora Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Kaladhungi Road, Haldwani, District Nainital. It is the claim of the petitioner that after the death of her father the amount lying in the PPF account of her father has not been released in her favour despite representations having been made. Reference has been made to the Public Provident Fund Scheme, 2019 (“2019 Scheme”) particularly, Clause 14 of it to argue that being a legal heir, the petitioner is entitled to get the provident fund amount of her late father. 3. Learned counsel for the Bank was required to get instructions in the matter. He would submit that matter may be decided based on the arguments itself. No such counter affidavit is required to be filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Public Provident Fund Act, 1968 (“the Act”) provides for the Institution of a Provident Fund for the general public and Section 3 of it, makes provisions with regard to Public Provident Fund Scheme. He would submit that under Section 3, a scheme was to be formulated, which the Government of India formulated in the year 1968, wherein reference has been made to Clause 12 of the Public Provident Fund Scheme, 1968 (the 1968 Scheme”). He would submit that under Section 3, a scheme was to be formulated, which the Government of India formulated in the year 1968, wherein reference has been made to Clause 12 of the Public Provident Fund Scheme, 1968 (the 1968 Scheme”). He would submit that Clause 12 of the 1968 Scheme makes provisions with regard to release of the fund particularly, reference has been made to Clause 12(6)(ii), which reads as follows:- “12. Nomination and repayment after death of subscriber – (1) A Subscriber to the fund may nominate in Form E or, as near thereto as possible, one or more persons to receive the amount standing to his credit in the event of his death before the amount has become payable or, having become payable, has not been paid. (1)……………………………… (2)……………………………… …………………………………. (6) Notwithstanding the provisions contained in paragraph 9 – (i) ………………………………… (ii) Where there is no nomination in force at the time of death of the subscriber, the amount standing to the credit of the deceased after making adjustment, if any, in respect of interest on loans taken by the subscriber, shall be repaid by the Accounts Office to the legal heirs of the deceased on receipt of application in Form G in this behalf from them.” 5. Learned counsel would argue that the 1968 Scheme has been substituted by the Public Provident Fund Scheme 2019 (“the 2019 Scheme”). It is argued that the mandate of the requirement of Form ‘G’ as required under Clause 12(6)(ii) of the 1968 Scheme is no more necessary. Reference has been made to Clause 14 of the 2019 Scheme which reads as follows:- “14. Closure of account on death of the account holder- (1) In the event of the death of the account holder, the account shall be closed and the nominee or the legal heir shall not be allowed to continue the account. (2) The balance in the account of the deceased account holder shall earn interest till the end of the month preceding the month in which the eligible balance is paid to the nominee or the legal heir, as the case may be.” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that being a legal heir without submission of succession certificate the petitioner is entitled to the Provident Fund deposited in the respondent no.1-State Bank of India (“the Bank”). 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that being a legal heir without submission of succession certificate the petitioner is entitled to the Provident Fund deposited in the respondent no.1-State Bank of India (“the Bank”). 7. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1-Bank would argue that not only Clause 14 of the 2019 Scheme, but Clause 16 of the 2019 Scheme is relevant for the purpose. He would submit that the General Rules are also applicable which requires submission of succession certificate. 8. Learned counsel for the Bank would submit that the petitioner may submit a succession certificate and get funds released in her favour. Therefore, it is argued that there is no merits in this petition. 9. A small issue has been brought to this Court i.e. regarding claim of the petitioner for the amount deposited by her father in his Provident Fund account. The only question is that, as to what would be the modalities to get the funds? 10. A bare reading of Clause 14 of the 2019 Scheme makes it clear that balance in the account shall be paid to the nominee or to the legal heirs, as the case may be. Clause 16 of the 2019 Scheme further provides that the provisions of the General Rules may be applied in relations to matters in which no provision has been made in the 2019 Scheme. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Clause 14 of the 2019 Scheme is quite clear, it does not require any assistance of General Rules and the petitioner is legally entitled to get the amount deposited in the account of the Public Provident Fund of her father. 12. General Rules, as per Clause 2(e) of the 2019 Scheme is the Government Saving Promotions General Rules, 2018 (“the General Rules”). On behalf of respondent-bank, reference has been made to Clause 15 of the General Rules, which reads as follows:- “15. Payment on the death of depositor.- (1) In the event of death of the depositor of a single account or of all the depositors in a joint account, the eligible balance in the account shall be payable as specified in sub-rules (2) to (6). Payment on the death of depositor.- (1) In the event of death of the depositor of a single account or of all the depositors in a joint account, the eligible balance in the account shall be payable as specified in sub-rules (2) to (6). (2) If a nomination made under rule 14 is in force at the time of death of the depositor of a single account or all the depositors of a joint account, the nominee may make an application in Form 11 to the Accounts Office for payment of the eligible balance and the application shall be accompanied by the proof of death of the depositor, and where any other nominee has also died, the proof of death of such nominee. (3) If there are two or more surviving nominees, the eligible balance shall be paid in the proportion as specified by the depositor while making the nomination, and if no such proportion or share is specified, then in equal proportion to all the surviving nominees. (4) If any nominee dies, his specified share in the eligible balance shall be distributed among the surviving nominees in the same proportion as their specified shares. (5) Where the surviving nominee is a minor, the payment shall be made to a person appointed by the depositor under sub-rule (2) of rule 14 to receive such payment and, if no such person has been appointed, to the guardian of the minor. (6) If a depositor dies and there is no nomination in force at the time of his death, and probate of his will or letters of administration of his estate or a succession certificate as granted in the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925) is not produced within six months from the death of the depositor to the authorized officer of the Accounts Office where the account stands, then,- (i) if the eligible amount in the account does not exceed Rs. 5 lakh, the authorized officer of the Accounts Office or the authority specified by the Institution to which the Accounts Office belongs, may pay the same to any person appearing to him as the rightful claimant and to his satisfaction to be entitled to receive the amount or to administer the estate of the deceased, on an application in Form-11 accompanied by the following documents; namely:- (a) Death certificate, (b) Pass Book or deposit receipt/statement of account in original, (c) Affidavit in Form-13, (d) Letter of disclaimer in Form-14, (e) Bond of Indemnity in Form-15, (ii) if the eligible amount in a deceased account is above Rs. 5 lakh, the amount shall be paid by the Accounts office to the claimant on submission of ‘Succession Certificate’ issued by the court along with the following documents; namely:- (a) Claim form, (b) Pass Book or deposit receipt or statement of account in original, (c) Death certificate of the account holder.” 13. On behalf of the respondent-bank reference has been made to Clause 15 (6)(ii) of the General Rules. 14. It is true that 2019 Scheme makes provisions with regard to accounts, their closure and payments, etc. Clause 14(2) of 2019 Rules definitely makes provisions with regard to payments that may be made to the nominee or the legal heirs, as the case may be. 15. The question for consideration is, as to how the payment should be made? What would be its mode of payment? Clause 16 of 2019 Scheme provides that if required, the provisions of the General Rules may be made applicable in the matter, if there is no provision in the 2019 Scheme. Clause 15(6)(ii) of General Rules, provides for the process, as to how the payment would be made. It requires that before such payment is made, a succession certificate issued by a court has to be submitted along with (i) Plain Form, (ii) Passbook or deposit receipt or statement of account in original and (iii) Death Certificate of the account holder. Reading of Clause 14 and 16 together of 2019 Rules, makes it clear that the Clause 15(6)(ii) of General Rules would also be made applicable in the instant case, as well. The petitioner claims that she is daughter of Late Dr. Mahesh Kumar. She claims the amount deposited in the account of Provident Fund of her late father, Dr. Mahesh Kumar. The petitioner claims that she is daughter of Late Dr. Mahesh Kumar. She claims the amount deposited in the account of Provident Fund of her late father, Dr. Mahesh Kumar. The petitioner may very well submit application form as per Clause 15(6)(ii) of General Rules. Therefore, this Court is of the view that no interference, as such is warranted in the matter. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. 16. The petition is dismissed in limine.