JUDGMENT : 1. One, Sri Bhojraj Singh, was retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2012 while working as Assistant Teacher in Maharaja Tej Singh, Junior High School Aurandh, Vikash Khand Sultanganj, District Mainpuri he and died on 02.10.2021. Petitioner is claiming retiral benefits of Sri Bhojraj Singh on strength of being his nominee, as mentioned in service book as well as that she was staying with late Sri Bhojraj Singh for many years as his wife. 2. Sri Rakesh Kumar Rathore and Sri Shyam Narayan Verma, Advocates appearing for petitioner, submitted that petitioner is not disputing that Respondent-10, Usha Devi, was legally wedded wife of Sri Bhojraj Singh. However, she left him many years ago and allegedly married to another person, therefore, she is not entitled for retiral benefits of Sri Bhojraj Singh. Learned counsel further submitted that there was a proceeding initiated at the instance of Respondent-10 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. wherein a compromise was entered and agreed amount was taken by Respondent-10 and thereafter she never claimed any maintenance allowance and as such she has abandoned her right, if any. 3. Per contra, Sri Himanshu Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for Respondent-10, has referred relevant part of impugned order and contended that since Respondent-10 is legally wedded wife of Sri Bhojraj Singh and there was no divorce between them, therefore, only on basis of being nominee or that petitioner stayed with Sri Bhojraj Singh for a long time, would not sufficient to accrue all retiral benefits to her. Relevant part of impugned order is reproduced hereinafter: ^^mi;qDRk vafdr fooj.k dk voyksdu djus ij fofnr gksrk gS fd Jhefr jtuhjkuh ,oa Jhefr Å"kk nsoh dk fookn U;k;ky; rglhynkj Hkksxkao ds ;gka fopkjk/khu gS rFkk iwoZ esa gqvk le>kSrk Hkh orZeku esa izHkkoh gSA ftyk 'kkldh; vf/koDrk ¼flfoy½] eSuiqjh us Hkh viuh jk; fnukad 29-11-2022 esa jk; O;Dr dh gS fd fookg foPNsn dk vf/kdkj fgUnw fookg vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 12 ds varxZr ifjokj U;k;ky; dks izkIr gS fdUrq /kkjk 13 fgUnq fookg vf/kfu;e ds vraxZr ikfjr fd;k x;k dksbZ Hkh fu.kZ; bl i=koyh ij miyC/k ugh gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa vkosfndk Å"kk nsoh dk fookg foPNsn ugh ekuk tk ldrk gSA bl vk/kkj ij vkosfndk Å"kk nsoh dk fookg foPNsn ugha ekuk tk ldrk gSA bl vk/kkj ij vkosfndk Å"kk nsoh ds izkFkZuk i= ij fopkj fd;k tkuk mfpr gksxkA fu.kZ; Jhefr Å"kk nsoh iRuh Jh Hkkstjkt falg dh igyh iRuh gksus ds dkj.k ,oa fgUnq fookg vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 ds varxZr mudk foPNsn@rykd u gksus ds dkj.k ;g ifjokfjd isa'ku ikus dh vf/kdkjh gSA vr% mDr ds vuqØe esa Jhefr Å"kk nsoh iRuh Jh Hkkstjkt flag dks ikfjokfjd isa'ku dk ykHk vuqEkU; fd;k tkrk gSA rnuqlkj izdj.k fuLrkfjr fd;k tkrk gSA^^ (Emphasis supplied) 4. In order to decide the controversy involved in this writ petition it would be appropriate to refer a judgment passed by Supreme Court in Shipra Sengupta Vs. Mridul Sengupta and others (2009) 10 SCC 680 wherein it was held that a nominee of a Government employee is only a custodian and benefit after employee’s death will confer to his/ her legal heirs. Relevant part of the judgment is reproduced hereinafter: "17. The controversy involved in the instant case is no longer res integra. The nominee is entitled to receive the same, but the amount so received is to be distributed according to the law of succession. In terms of t he factual foundation laid in the present case, the deceased died on 8.11.1990 leaving behind his mother and widow as his only heirs and legal representatives entitled to succeed. Therefore, on the day when the right of succession opened, the appellant, his widow became entitled to one-half of the amount of the general provident fund, the other half going to the mother and on her death, the other surviving son getting the same. 18. Therefore, on the day when the right of succession opened, the appellant, his widow became entitled to one-half of the amount of the general provident fund, the other half going to the mother and on her death, the other surviving son getting the same. 18. In view of the clear legal position, it is made abundantly clear 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 the law of succession governing them. In other words, nomination does not confer any beneficial interest on the nominee. In the instant case the amounts so received are to be distributed according to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956." (Emphasis supplied) 5. The aforesaid view of Supreme Court has been followed and reiterated by this Court also in Smt. Suneeta vs. Union of India and others (Writ-A No. 9128 of 2009), decided on 14.07.2022. 6. As referred above, it is not in dispute that petitioner was not legally wedded wife of Bhojraj Singh as well as it is also not in dispute that Respondent-10 was legally wedded wife of Bhojraj Singh as well as it is also not dispute that during life time of Sri Bhojraj Singh, he has not divorced Respondent-10. 7. The argument of learned counsel for petitioner that in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Respondent-10 has made a compromise, therefore, it would be sufficient to hold that she has abandoned her right, cannot be accepted since it would not be a correct legal approach. Today Respondent-10 is claiming her right and as held in Shipra Sengupta (supra) a nominee of a Government employee is just a custodian and benefit after death of Government employee has to be conferred or granted in accordance with law, i.e., to his/ her legal heirs and in the present case Respondent-10 is the legal heir being legally wedded wife of Sri Bhojraj Singh and she was never divorced, therefore, I do not find any illegality in impugned order. 8. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.