HEMANT KULSHRESTHA Vs. PUSHPA KUISHRESTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Proceedings for grant of succession certificate were initiated by the respondents, claiming themselves to be legal representatives of late Ravi Prakash Kulshrestha. Petitioner claims to be brother of late Ravi Prakash Kulshrestha. Ravi Prakash Kulshrestha was holding the post of upper division clerk in the Office of Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Shivpuri. While in service he died. The amount of Rs. 1,13,932 towards provident fund, Rs. 1,00,000 towards insurance and Rs.34,278 towards gratuity, totalling Rs.2,48,210 is to be paid to the legal representatives of deceased Ravi Prakash. The mother of Ravi Prakash died on December 2, 1997. Respondent No. 1 pleaded that she is the legally married wife of deceased Ravi Prakash and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are the minor daughters of late Ravi Prakash. It is also undisputed that a civil suit for divorce between Ravi Prakash and Smt. Pushpa was pending, which has been withdrawn. Ravi Prakash had nominated his brother as nominee in the service record in place of his wife and daughter. Petitioner submits that since respondent No. 1 had deserted her husband, she is not entitled for succession certificate. Even otherwise, being a nominee the petitioner has right of succession certificate to receive the money.

(2.) Under the Madhya Pradesh General Provident Fund Rules, "Family" is defined under Rule 2(1 )(c), which is reproduced below: "2(l)(c): "Family" means:

(3.) Rule 8 provides for nominations and proviso to Rule 8 provides that if the subscriber has a family then the nomination shall not be in favour of any person or persons other than the members of his family. Note below Rule 8 provides that even if some sanction is accorded in relaxation of Rule to any nomination made by a subscriber in favour of a person or persons other than members of his family (say 'mother' and "brother", who are not included in the term "family" as defined in these Rules) when members of his family are surviving, that is ineffective and the nominee would not be entitled to the right conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the PROVIDENT FUNDS ACT, 1925. Therefore, under the provisions of Section 5 of the Provident Fund Act and the Rules framed thereunder, the person entitled to become nominee should be a member of the family, as defined under Rule 2(1 )(c) of the Madhya Pradesh General Provident Fund Rules.