B. SUGUNA Vs. BOLLA MALATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The Petitioner, a 79 year old mother, is challenging the judgment and order dtd. 12/10/2023 passed by the learned Member, Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai (for short, 'the Tribunal') in Original Application No. 255 of 2022. By the said impugned order, the application of Respondent No.1 (deceased son's widow) is partly allowed directing Respondent Nos.2 to 4 to release the General Provident Fund (GPF) amount in equal shares to the Petitioner and Respondent No.1 i.e. 50% each.

(3.) Few facts shorn of unnecessary details, are as under. The Petitioner is the mother and the Respondent No.1 is the widow of late Bolla Mohan ('the Deceased' for short). The Deceased was working with the Defence Account Department (employee of the Union of India) and at the time of joining services, he nominated his mother (Petitioner) for GPF, Central Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme (CGEGIS) and for Death cum Retirement Gratuity (DCRG). On 29/2/2000, he submitted the nomination form in accordance with applicable rules. On 20/6/2003, the Deceased married with Respondent No.1 and after marriage, nominated her for CGEGIS and DCRG. It is an admitted fact that the Deceased did not nominate Respondent No.1 specifically for GPF. On 4/7/2021, the Deceased expired while in service, and the terminal benefits like Encashment of Leave, CGEGIS, DCRG, Medical Reimbursement have been paid to Respondent No.1 (widow) totaling to Rs.60,00,000.00. Respondent No.1 (widow) is also getting monthly Family Pension Rs.55,000.00 per month who claimed employment on compassionate ground. On 30/7/2021 Respondent No.1 (widow) applied for receiving GPF amount claiming to be only legitimate family member. By order dated 9/10/8.2021 and 9/9/2021, Respondent Nos.2 to 4 informed the Respondent No.1 (widow) that since the Petitioner (mother) is nominated for GPF, the said amount can be claimed only by the Petitioner. Respondent No.1 was asked to obtain succession to claim the said amount. Respondent No.1 thereafter, again made application for disbursal of GPF amount claiming that nomination of the Petitioner is not valid after the marriage of the Deceased with Respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 therefore filed the said Original Application before the Tribunal in which the impugned judgment/order is passed.