RANI BODHESWARAN Vs. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner married Sri. Bodheswaran on 30.04.2006. Sri. Bodheswaran is no more. He was in the service of Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Limited (FACT). He took voluntary retirement on 17.01.2005. The establishment was covered by Employees' Provident Fund (EPF). While in service, he had shown Smt. Rajalakshmi, the 2nd respondent, as his nominee. As seen from the records, he divorced Smt. Rajalakshmi in accordance with law. This was after his retirement from the service of FACT. Based on the divorce, he made a request with the EPF authorities to change the nominee. His request was rejected for the reason that by the time he married the petitioner, he was not a member of the EPF.

(2.) It is argued by the learned counsel for the official respondents that merely because the deceased was in receipt of pension, he could not change nomination on his retirement from service.

(3.) This is not an issue which, according to me, would come within the ambit of the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. This is something which the above Act never contemplated. Consequent upon divorce, the relation of late Bodheswaran with his original wife has come to an end. The original wife, therefore, cannot be permitted to continue as nominee. Certainly, that situation warrants a change. In the absence of any law, the general principles relating to succession will have to be followed in a matter like this.