PAWNA THAKUR Vs. CHINTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question which has been raised in this petition is whether a nominee entitled to receive the amount in terms of Section 5 of the Provident Funds Act is entitled to receive this amount as sole heir of the deceased or receives this amount only as a nominee on behalf of the legal heirs and is, therefore, duty bound to pay this amount to the legal heirs.

(2.) A dispute is pending between the parents of late Shri Sita Ram Thakur on one side and his widow and daughter on the other side. The admitted facts of the case are that late Shri Sita Ram Thakur was employed in the HPPWD and in respect of his Provident Fund had made a nomination in favour of his wife. The parents of Sita Ram Thakur filed a suit that Smt. Pawna Thakur-defendant is not the legally wedded wife of deceased Sita Ram and they were his sole legal heirs. It was also prayed that the respondents be restrained from giving any amount to Pawna Thakur and Nitu and her nomination be declared null and void. Written statement was filed on behalf of the defendants and it was re-asserted that Pawna Thakur was the widow of Sita Ram Thakur and Nitu was his daughter.

(3.) It appears that vide order dated 15th September, 2006, the stay application filed by the parents was rejected and it was found that the applicants had failed to prove a prima facie case in their favour. The learned trial Court was of the view that Pawna Thakur and Nitu were the widow and daughter of the deceased Sita Ram Thakur. It also appears that thereafter 2/3rd of the amount was released in favour of Pawna Thakur and Nitu. Thereafter, another application was filed by the plaintiffs in which it was prayed that 1/3rd amount may be ordered to be released in favour of the mother, being the Class-I heir. This application was allowed by the learned trial Court and 1/3rd of the GPF amount was ordered to be released in favour of the mother, Smt. Chinti. This order is under challenge in this petition filed by the widow and daughter of Sita Ram Thakur.