IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.959 of 2024 ====================================================== 1. Sunita Devi Daughter of Late Sarswati Devi and Late Rajendra Prasad and Wife of Chandrama Prasad Resident at Mohalla- Mogalkuan, Etwari Bazar, Police Station- Sohsarai, District- Nalanda (Bihar). 2. Nisha Sandhi Daughter of Late Sarswati Devi and Late Rajendra Prasad and Wife of Mukesh Kumar Resident at Mohalla- Mogalkuan, Etwari Bazar, Police Station- Sohsarai, District- Nalanda. At present residing at D-117, Sector-108 (RWA) NOIDA, Gautambudh Nagar (U.P). 3. Babita Devi Daughter of Late Sarswati Devi and Late Rajendra Prasad and Wife of Vijay Kumar Verma Resident at Mohalla- Kurmi Tola Manpur, Police Station- Muffasil, District- Gaya. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Additional Chief Secretary Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Additional Chief Secretary Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Chief Engineer (South) Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Superintending Engineer Central Circle, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 6. The District Magistrate Nalanda. 7. The Executive Engineer Road Construction Department, Road Division, Biharsharif, District Nalanda. 8. The Assistant Director Provident Fund Directorate, Pant Bhawan, Bihar, Patna. 9. The Principal Accountant General (A and E) Bihar, Patna. 10. Sudhir Kumar Son of Late Sarswati Devi and Late Rajendra Prasad Resident at Mohalla- Mogalkuan, Etwari Bazar, Police Station- Sohsarai, District- Nalanda (Bihar). 11. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Branch Bihar Shariff, Nalanda. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rabindra Prasad Singh, Advocate For Res. No.10 : Mr.Shailendra Kumar, Advocate For the Accountant General: Mr.Vivekanand Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, Advocate ====================================================== Patna High Court CWJC No.959 of 2024(8) dt.13-08-2026 2/6 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 8 13-08-2026 Heard Mr. Rabindra Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners; Mr. Shailendra Kumar, learned counsel for the Respondent no.10; Mr. Vivekanand Kumar, learned counsel for the Accountant General (Bihar) and Mr.Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioners in paragraph no. 1 of the present writ petition have sought inter alia following relief(s), which is reproduced hereinafter:- “That this application is on behalf of the petitions for issuance of appropriate order/orders/direction/directions/writ in the nature of mandamus for commanding and directing to the respondents to pay the death cum retiral dues of their shares because mother of the petitioners Late Saraswati Devi died in harness on 08.01.2020 with statutory interest for the ends of justice.” 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners informs this Court that certain subsequent development has taken place during the pendency of the present writ petition. As regards to the payment of share to the brother of the petitioners, vide letter no.105 dated 04.02.2021, a sum of Rs.3,08,887/- has been paid, however, the remaining amount due with respect to the earlier period and the period beyond the said financial year is required to be paid, vide order as contained in Memo No. 6 dated 01.01.2024. Patna High Court CWJC No.959 of 2024(8) dt.13-08-2026 3/6 4. Learned counsel further informs that all the three sisters (petitioners) have given their no objection in respect of their claim by way of a notarized affidavit dated 22.01.2020. The competent authority has also taken into consideration letter Nos. 3451 dated 01.12.2023 and 3448 dated 01.12.2023. 5. Learned counsel also informs that the amount of provident fund has already been paid to the nominee and the payment of amount payable under the Group Insurance Scheme, in absence of the nominee, has not been made. 6. It is a settled law that, nomination does not confer any beneficial or absolute right upon the nominee in respect of the amount payable under any policy or to any monetary benefit. The nominee is merely entitled to receive the amount from the insurer, and the amount so received continues to form part of the estate of the deceased and remains subject to the law of succession applicable to him. Therefore, merely because the person or an individual has been nominated under the policy, such nomination by itself would not confer upon him an exclusive right to the amount payable thereunder, to the exclusion of the other legal heirs of the deceased. The entitlement to such amount, as between the legal heirs, is required to be determined in accordance with the applicable law Patna High Court CWJC No.959 of 2024(8) dt.13-08-2026 4/6 of succession. 7. In this regard I find it apt to refer the observation made by the Apex Court in case of Sarbati Devi v. Usha Devi, reported in (1984) 1 SCC 424, wherein it was observed that the nomination only indicates the hand which is authorised to receive the amount, on the payment of which the insurer gets a valid discharge of its liability under the policy, The amount, however, can be claimed by the heirs of the assured in accordance with the law of succession governing them. The relevant paragraph is inter alia as under: “12. ……...We approve the views expressed by the other High Courts on the meaning of Section 39 of the Act and hold that a mere nomination made under Section 39 of the Act does not have the effect of conferring on the nominee any beneficial interest in the amount payable under the life insurance policy on the death of the assured. The nomination only indicates the hand which is authorised to receive the amount, on the payment of which the insurer gets a valid discharge of its liability under the policy. The amount, however, can be claimed by the heirs of the assured in accordance with the law of succession governing them.” 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and the legal position discussed hereinabove, and having regard to Finance Department Memo No. 28619 dated 03.12.1960, the gratuity amount payable on account of the deceased is required to be dealt with in accordance with the applicable Rules and is to be distributed amongst the biological sons and daughters of the Patna High Court CWJC No.959 of 2024(8) dt.13-08-2026 5/6 deceased, subject to their respective eligibility. The fact that the amount of provident fund has already been paid to the nominee, or that any person may have been nominated in respect of any other monetary benefit, by itself, cannot be treated as conferring an exclusive or beneficial right upon such nominee so as to defeat the lawful claim of the other eligible legal heirs. The nomination, as noticed hereinabove, only authorizes the nominee to receive the amount and does not determine the ultimate entitlement thereto amongst the legal heirs. In the present case, the three sisters, who are the petitioners, have already furnished their no objection with regard to their claim by way of notarized affidavit dated 22.01.2020. At the same time, the claim of respondent no. 10, as well as the entitlement of the petitioners and other eligible beneficiaries, is required to be verified by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable Rules. Accordingly, the concerned authority is directed to issue notice to respondent no. 10 as well as to all the three petitioners and, after verifying their respective entitlement and taking into consideration the relevant records, shall ensure that the entire amount payable towards gratuity is duly released and distributed amongst all the eligible beneficiaries in equal shares, strictly in accordance with law. It is made clear that the Patna High Court CWJC No.959 of 2024(8) dt.13-08-2026 6/6 payment shall be made after due verification of the entitlement of each beneficiary and in a manner consistent with the applicable Rules, so that the claim of any eligible legal heir is neither excluded merely on the basis of nomination nor otherwise deprived of his or her lawful share. 9. With the above observation/direction, the present writ petition stands disposed of. chn/- (Purnendu Singh, J) U