KAJAL KUMARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the daughter of late Babali Kumari who was a lady Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force posted at Kolkata. Initially, late Babani Kumari had nominated her husband Mr. Satyendra Kumar Singh as the nominee for receiving all pensionary benefits in case of her demise. It is not in dispute that she expired on 21.7.2007 but, admittedly, before her death on 28.5.2007, she had filed application alongwith affidavit changing the nomination from her husband to her daughter who was minor then under the guardianship of Laxman Prasad who was the maternal grandfather of the petitioner and father of late Babali Kumari. After the death of Babali Kumari, it appears that Laxman Prasad, that is the father of Babali Kumari, applied for payment of pensionary benefits as a guardian of Kajal Kumari, the petitioner but the same has been refused by the Senior Commandant vide his letter dated 30th October, 2007 (Annexure -3). It is the correctness of this that the writ application has been filed by the petitioner Kajal Kumari through the guardian.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for CISF and a counter affidavit has also been filed giving the calculation of pensionary benefits. With consent of parties, the writ application is being disposed of at this stage itself. There appears to be some confusion in the mind of authority with regard to the legal implication and aspects of nomination and succession. A person has a right to nominate any person to receive the property or benefits after his death. If such a nomination is made then the property would devolve on such a nominee. It is well settled that nomination, once made, is not final for all times and the nomination can be changed as many times as the person making nomination wishes. Thus, on fresh nomination being made, the earlier nominations lose legal significance. Thus, in the present case, when before her death, late lady Constable Babali Kumari made application alongwith affidavit for change of nomination, that erased the nomination in favour of her husband. Thus, the authorities of ClSF are wholly wrong in concluding that there is dispute of nominations. It is a dispute being created by them which does not exist either in fact or in law.

(3.) IT is my duty to clarify as to the rights of a nominee because the authorities have asked for a succession certificate to be produced. Firstly, as the first nomination has been rendered void pursuant to the second subsequent nomination, there is no dispute and thus being the position, valid nomination being there; asking for succession certificate is wholly misconceived. The purpose for nomination and the legal obligation thereunder are well known in law. Firstly, the nominee merely holds the property in trust for the true legal heirs. A nominee does not become the absolute owner of the property which he or she receives by virtue of being a nominee. The second aspect of nomination is that once a person delivers or pays to the nominee then the nominee is competent to give a valid discharge and that discharge relieves the person of any further obligation. It is only for the purposes of a valid discharge that nominations are made. Thus seen, once the CISF acts in accordance with the nomination, it has no further liability. The question of succession certificate would only arise where there is no nomination or the nomination is invalid for any purpose which is not the case here. So far as CISF is concerned, it is bound by the nomination and must make over the properties to the rightful nominee. So far as the husband of the lady Constable is concerned, if he has any claim over the property, it is for him to contest the matter in a Court but so long as the nomination in favour of the daughter under the guardianship of the maternal grandfather is valid. CISF is obliged to act in accordance therewith and pay the amount.