HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 35522 of 2018 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Mr. Vishal Verma, learned counsel for petitioners, learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties no.1, 2 & 3 and Mr. Sanjay Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite parties no.4 to 8. 2. Notice to opposite party no.9 has been dispensed with in view of the fact that the said person is already impleaded as petitioner no.3 to the writ petition. 3. Petition has been filed challenging orders dated 25.11.2017 and 17.01.2018 to the extent by which directions have been issued to the petitioner as well as opposite party no.4 to obtain succession certificate for purposes of payment of death-cum- retrial dues. Direction has also been sought to the concerned authority for payment of death-cum- retiral dues to petitioners as per nomination in the service-book of the deceased late Mahfujjul Haq Khan in favour of petitioners without compelling them for obtaining succession certificate. It has Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Saima Khan, Girish Chandra Verma, Vishal Verma Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Akshat Kumar, Anita Sinha, Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, Sanjay Kumar Srivastava Rukhsana Begum And Ors. .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P.Thru Addl.Chief Secy.Food And Civil Supply And Ors. .....Respondent(s) also been prayed that the opposite parties be directed to provide appointment to petitioner no.2 namely Badrul Haq Khan on compassionate basis in terms of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that petitioner no.1 is the legally wedded wife of late Mahfujjul Haq Khan who passed away in service on 08.08.2017. It is submitted that the name of petitioner no.1 is clearly indicated as a nominee in the service-book of the deceased employee and therefore he has placed reliance on Rule 7 of the U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961 to submit that in terms thereof, it is the petitioner no.1 and her children who are entitled for payment of death-cum-retrial dues of the deceased employee. It is submitted that therefore there was no occasion for opposite parties to have required petitioners to have submitted succession certificates. It is submitted that the application for compassionate appointment has also been rejected only on the ground that there is dispute regarding succession between petitioner no.1 and opposite party no.4 who also claims herself to be the legally wedded wife of deceased employee. 5. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Meena Devi Versus State of U.P. & Ors., Special Appeal Defective No.205 of 2016 as well as in the judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rafat Naaz & Anr.Versus State of U.P. & Ors; Writ A No.6031 of 2024 to submit that it is only the person nominated in the service-book who is entitled for payment of death-cum-retiral benefits. WRIA No. 35522 of 2018 2 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties no.4 to 8 has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioners with the submission that admittedly petitioner no.1 and the opposite party no.4 are both legally wedded wives of deceased employee and nomination of petitioner no.1 in the service-book of deceased employee is merely indicative of the fact that her status is only that of a trustee and not as a beneficiary and the said amount would be required to be distributed in accordance with succession. It is therefore submitted that there is no express right inherent in the petitioner to claim service benefits of deceased employee only on the basis that she is nominated therein. 7. It is also submitted that there are at least four civil suits pending between parties as indicated in paragraph 6 of the short counter affidavit dated 12.05.2023 with Regular Civil Suit No.108 of 2019 instituted by opposite party no.4 for declaration of service dues and post retiral dues of deceased. Civil Suit No.48 of 2022 also filed by opposite party no.4 pertains to restraining the petitioners/dependents permanently not to make any interference in peaceful possession of the plaintiff on the part of house in which they are residing. Miscellaneous Case No.26 of 2018 also instituted by opposite party no.4 is for issuance of succession certificate pertaining to property and assets. Miscellaneous Case No.06 of 2018 has been instituted by petitioner no.1 also for issuance of a succession certificate. 8. It is submitted that all the four Regular Suits and Miscellaneous Cases are pending adjudication before courts of competent jurisdiction and WRIA No. 35522 of 2018 3 therefore the opposite party has rightly rejected petitioners’ application for payment of entire service and post retiral benefits of deceased employee to petitioners. 9. He has placed reliance on judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Shipra Sengupta Versus Mridul Sengupta; (2009)10 SCC 680 to buttress his submissions that nomination does not confer any beneficial interest on the nominee who holds the amounts due only as a trustee. It is also submitted that in case entire amount is made available to petitioner, it could be practicably impossible for the answering opposite parties to recover the same, even subsequently even in case they succeed in their Regular Suits. 10. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that petitioner no.1 has claimed that she is the widow of the deceased employee with petitioners no.2 to 6 being her offspring. It is also relevant that in rejoinder affidavit filed by petitioner dated 04.02.2021, particularly paragraph-5 thereof, it is admitted that opposite party no.4 is second-wife of the deceased employee. 11. In this manner, it is admitted between the parties that petitioner no.1 as well as opposite party no.4 are widows of the deceased employee. 12. Rule 7(4) of the Rules of 1961 clearly indicates the aspect that except as may be provided by a nomination under sub-rule (5), pension sanctioned under the Part would be granted in the manner indicated therein. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 7 of the aforesaid Rules pertain to nomination which WRIA No. 35522 of 2018 4 is to be effected by Government servant immediately after his confirmation indicating the order in which a pension sanctioned under the Part would be payable to members of his family. 13. It is admitted between the parties that petitioner no.1 is in fact indicated as a nominee in the service book of the deceased employee. The said aspect has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Meena Devi(supra) in the following manner:- "We have indicated these provisions to emphasize that sufficient guidance is contained in the provisions of the Rules to deal with such a situation. If there was a nomination validly executed, the nomination would govern the payment of death-cum-retirement gratuity. The principles for the payment of family pension are indicated in Rule 7. The Superintendent of Police as a competent authority is required to determine the entitlement to the payment of gratuity, family pension, GPF and other retiral dues in accordance with the provisions which are contained in the Rules. The fact that a settlement was not possible between the rival claimants will not discharge the competent authority of its obligation to decide the matter in accordance with law. The provisions of the Rules were evidently not noticed by the learned Single Judge. There was no reason to dismiss the writ petition as raising disputed questions of fact. There may be disputed claims but where the law has made provisions for the disposal of those claims in accordance with the principles of nomination and priority, the provisions of the Rules must govern." 14. In the case of Rafat Naaz(supra), a coordinate Bench of this Court has also placed reliance on the WRIA No. 35522 of 2018 5 aspect of nomination in the service book in favour of petitioner therein. The relevant portion of the judgment is as follows:- "19. In substance, a nomination in the service records and a succession certificate granted by the Court under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act are at par; neither confers any beneficial interest upon the recipient of the proceeds. As already said, a person who asserts title or beneficial interest in moneys or movable property received by another under a succession certificate, or for that matter, a nomination can always institute a suit for declaration or other appropriate consequential relief in order to establish his beneficial interest or entitlement. At the same time, once there is a nomination left by the deceased in his service records in favour of a person, who is his wife, there is no reason for the respondents or any employer to withhold payment of the post retiral benefits in favour of the nominee in the service records. It is for the other person, not so nominated, to establish his/ her claim through suit. As already said, here the fifth respondent is certainly not a nominee of the deceased in any of the service records. Her name does not appear in those records as the deceased's wife. Before this Court she has filed a photostat copy of a Nikahnama dated 01.05.2016 and a photostat copy of the certificate issued by the Gram Pradhan, without occasion, about the deceased and the fifth respondent living together as man and wife." 15. It is thus evident that in aforesaid judgments, the aspect of nomination in service records has been held not to confer any beneficial interest upon the recipient of the proceeds. It is on the basis of a succession certificate or a suit for declaration that a right is established for relief pertaining to benefits arising out of service of WRIA No. 35522 of 2018 6 the deceased employee. 16. The said aspect has also been considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Shipra Sengupta(supra) wherein under also it has been held that a nominee may be entitled to receive the amounts arising out of service benefits of the deceased but the said amounts so received are to be distributed according to the law of succession. The Supreme Court has also held that nomination does not confer any beneficial interest on the nominee regarding dues which are to be distributed according to succession governing the parties. 17. Upon applicability of aforesaid judgments in the facts and circumstance of the case, it is thus evident that petitioner no.1 and opposite party no.4 both claim and admit each other to be the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee with name of petitioner no.1 being indicated as a nominee in the service book of the deceased. 18. As already held in the judgments indicated herein above, the aspect of nomination does not confer any beneficial right to the nominee but indicates the said person only as a trustee with the benefits to be distributed in accordance with succession. 19. From the record, it is also evident that four Regular Suits and Miscellaneous cases are pending between the parties pertaining to succession and declaration. 20. In view of aforesaid, since admittedly petitioner no.1 has a half share in the post- retiral benefits of the deceased-employee she would be entitled for the same. The benefit accorded to WRIA No. 35522 of 2018 7 petitioner no.1 with regard to service and post- retiral benefits to the extent of 50% shall also be subject to the final outcome of the succession cases pending between the parties. 21. So far as the aspect of denial of compassionate appointment by authorities concerned and to be considered only after submission of succession certificate is concerned, this Court finds the said reasoning to be in violation of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1974 which specifically indicates the procedure and norms to be followed by authorities for determination of rights for compassionate appointment, which is not dependent upon any declaration or succession certificates. 22. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances and discussions, particularly the law enunciated in judgments indicated herein above, without interfering with the directions indicated in the impugned order for obtaining succession certificate, authority concerned is directed to make payment of 50% of the service and post-retiral benefits of the deceased Mahfujjul Haq Khan, including Family Pension in favour of petitioner no.1 within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the authority concerned. 23. The said amount and remaining 50% of the amounts shall be subject to outcome of the succession cases between the parties. 24. The aspect of compassionate appointment is also directed to be decided by authority concerned in terms of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1974. 25. Such a decision shall be taken expeditiously WRIA No. 35522 of 2018 8 within a period of eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the authority concerned in keeping with provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1974. 26. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands partly allowed in terms of aforesaid. Parties to bear their own costs. October 13, 2025 Subodh/- WRIA No. 35522 of 2018 9 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench