Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hemant Kulshrestha vs Smt. Pushpa Kulshrestha And Others on 26 June, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(3)MPHT239
ORDER S.S. Jha, J.
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, Shiv-puri. 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 2-12-1997. Respondent No. 1 pleaded that she is the legally married wife of deceased Ravi Prakash and respondent 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 Pushpa was pending, which has been withdrawn.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, therefore, 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 (1) (c) "Family means-
(i) in the case of a male subscriber, the wife or wives and children of a subscriber, and the widow, or widows and children of a deceased son of the subscriber:
Provided that if a subscriber proves that his wife has been judicially separated from him or has ceased under the customary law of the community to which, she belongs to be entitled to maintenance she shall henceforth be deemed to be no longer a member of the subscriber's family in matters to which, these rules relate, unless the subscriber subsequently, indicates by express notification in writing to the Accounts Officer that she shall continue to be so regarded;
(ii) in the case of a female subscriber, the husband and children of the subscriber, and the widow or widows and children of a deceased son of the subscriber:
Provided that if a subscriber by notification in writing to the Accounts Officer expresses her desire to exclude her husband from her family, the husband shall henceforth be deemed to be no longer a member of the subscriber's family in matters to which these rules relate, unless the subscriber subsequently cancels formally in writing her notification excluding him."
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 Funds 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.
4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that once there is a nomination, nominee is entitled for succession certificate. Reliance was placed on the judgment in the case of Kheekbai Vs. Chamru Ram Yadav and others, reported in 1997 (2) MPLJ 212. In this case, nominee was also heir under Hindu Succession Act, therefore, the nominee was held to be entitled for succession certificate.
5. The petitioner has further placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Smt. Sarbati Devi and another Vs. Smt. Usha Devi, reported in AIR 1984 SC 346. This case relates to nominee of life insurance policy under the Insurance Act, and it is held that nominee of life insurance policy is entitled to succession certificate. Similar view is taken by this Court in Civil Revision No. 1252/1995, decided on 28-11-1996, holding therein that nominee is entitled for succession certificate. However, this case does not cover the cases of nomination under Provident Funds Act or Rules.
6. Even under the Hindu Succession Act, widow, children and mother are class one heir. Brother is not class 1 heir. In the facts and circumstances of the case, if nominee is not a member of family, he will not be entitled for succession certificate of deceased's property. On plain reading of Rule 8 Madhya Pradesh General Provident Fund Rules and Section 5 of Provident Funds Act, only members of family are entitled to be nominated. Any nomination other than member of family is invalid and, as such, nominee who is not a member of family as defined will not acquire any right in the funds of deceased-employee.
7. As discussed above, the Courts below have not committed any error in granting succession certificate in favour of respondents, who are widow and children of the deceased.
8. In the result, revision fails and is dismissed without any order as to costs.
9. Civil Revision dismissed.