ARATI BALLAV Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, in this writ petition, is the younger sister of one Smt. Jyotsna Das, since deceased, who was an employee under the West Bengal Essential Commodities Supply Corporation Limited, under the Food & Supplies Department, Government of West Bengal. On July 18, 2001, the said Jyotsna Das died leaving behind a Will dated June 09, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Will"), thereby bequeathing all her assets and properties, the receivable pensionary benefits as well as her provident fund dues in favour of the present petitioner, being one of her sisters. The petitioner was also named as the sole executrix of the said Will and she has duly obtained the said Will being probated by this Court. A copy of the said probated Will has been disclosed in this writ petition. In spite of the said Will being probated, the petitioner was not paid the retiral benefits of her said deceased sister by the West Bengal Essential Commodities Supply Corporation Limited. As such, the petitioner was constrained to file a writ petition, W.P. No. 21062 (W) of 2006, before this Court, against the aforementioned employer of her said deceased sister. By an order dated July 11, 2007, a learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the said writ petition by directing the Managing Director and the Personnel Manager of West Bengal Essential Commodities Supply Corporation, to disburse all the dues of the deceased to the petitioner. The said order has duly been complied with by the West Bengal Essential Commodities Supply Corporation Limited.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition relates to the refusal of the respondent no. 4, namely the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office, Kolkata to pay her the provident fund dues of her deceased sister. On the strength of the said probated Will, when the petitioner approached the respondent no. 4 for obtaining release of all provident fund dues of her deceased sister, she was informed that at the time of opening of the provident fund account, the deceased had nominated Shri Abhijit Das, the respondent no. 5 herein. According to the respondent no. 4, in view of the said nomination of the respondent no. 5 by the deceased the petitioner is not entitled to receive the provident fund dues of the deceased. From the first affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioner, it appears that at the first instance, a copy of this writ petition was forwarded to the respondent no. 5 and the same was received by him. However, when this application was taken up for hearing on March 20, 2019 the respondent no. 5 was not present before this Court. Accordingly, hearing of this application was adjourned till April 02, 2019 and the petitioner was directed to communicate the order dated March 20, 2019 to the respondent no. 5 by speed post as well as by personal service. The petitioner has filed a second affidavit of service disclosing a track report issued by the postal department showing that the respondent no. 5 has duly received the copy of the order dated March 20, 2019. However, when the respondent no.5 was sought to be personally served with a copy of the said order dated March 20, 2019 his wife, who was present at the residence, refused to receive the said order. However, none appears to represent the respondent no.5.

(3.) In the present case, it is a fact that when the deceased joined her service of the West Bengal Essential Commodities Supply Corporation Limited, she had nominated her nephew, the respondent no. 5 herein, as the nominee. However, subsequently, by executing the said Will the deceased bequeathed all her entitlement on account of provident fund in favour of the petitioner. The said Will has been probated by this High Court in its Original Jurisdiction. It is settled law that nomination does not confer any beneficial interest in the amount due to a deceased towards insurance, gratuity, public provident fund and general provident fund. An amount under any head can be received by a nominee, but the amount can be claimed by the heirs of the deceased in accordance with the law of succession governing them. If an authority is looked for in support of such view, the same is found in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported at (2009) 10 SCC 680 (Shipra Sengupta vs. Mridul Sengupta and Ors.). Thus, in the present case, the respondent no. 5, as the nominee can only maintain a claim before the provident fund authority to receive the provident fund dues of deceased and thereafter, he has the obligation to make over the entire amount to the petitioner. However, for the reasons best known to him, the respondent no. 5 has not taken any step to collect the provident fund dues of the deceased from the respondent no. 4.