KANAHAIYALAL Vs. SITARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant had made a prayer to the Court for the purpose of granting succession certificate for the purpose of claiming the amount of Rs. 9,000/ - which was pending in the Provident Fund Department of Rajkumar Mill, Indore, since 1953. The claim of the appellant is mainly on the basis of Ex. P -1 and P -2 his own evidence coupled with the evidence of PW -2 Sagarmal and PW -3 Rameshwar. By pointing -out this Smt. Waghmare submitted that in view of Rule 61 of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as Scheme, for convenience) the appellant is the only person to get succession certificate for the purpose of claiming that amount which is payable with interest at appropriate rate. Shri Bohra submitted that respondent No. 3 Surajdeen happens to be the father of the appellant and he did not have resistance for the claim preferred by the appellant for getting the succession certificate in respect of the payment of the said amount from the concerned department of Rajkumar Mill, Indore.

(2.) RULE No. 61 - - sub - rule 5 makes it clear that the employee can during his lifetime change is nomination as he found it necessary. What has to do is to give · the information and make request to the concerned authorities by giving information and making request in form No. 8. So far as present marriage is concerned, Ex. P -2 is the same form.

(3.) THE endorsement on the backside of Ex. P -2 shows that under the signature, deceased Jagannath had endorsed that his wife had already expired. When this endorsement is on the backside of Ex P -2 and Ex P -2 bears the date "4.12.72" the same date will have to be taken as the date of endorsement which is on the backside of Ex P -2. It is not disputed that deceased Jagannath was alive in the year 1972 because the record itself shows that deceased Jagannath died on 21.4.75. Needless to say that prior to 1972 the wife of deceased Subhadrabai had expired.