{1} wp10122-26.doc drp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.10122 OF 2026 Parveen Begum Gous Khan PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and Others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. G. K. Muneshwar, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. S. R. Wakle, AGP for Respondent - State Mr. Uttam B. Bondar, Advocate for Respondents No.2 to 5 ....… [CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, & ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. J.] DATE : 15 th SEPTEMBER, 2026 ORDER : 1. This Petition challenges communication dated 14th October, 2025 issued by Respondent No.5 – Superintendent of the Education Department, Zilla Parishad, Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar, thereby pointing out deficiencies in the proposal of the Petitioner for releasing Provident Fund amount. 2. The Petitioner is wife of Gous Khan s/o Yusuf Khan Pathan, who was serving as Assistant Teacher at Bhavani Basti Kendra, Turkabad, Taluka – Gangapur, District – Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar. While in service, he expired on 10th July, 2024. The Petitioner is the nominee and legal heir of the deceased 2026:BHC-AUG:42593-DB {2} wp10122-26.doc employee. She approached the concerned authorities for releasing Provident Fund amount in her favour. The Authorities directed her to obtain heirship certificate, which the Petitioner obtained on 5th July, 2025. When the heirship certificate was presented to the Respondents, Respondent No.5 passed the impugned order. 3. Learned Advocate for Respondents No.2 to 5 submits that taking into consideration the note below the heirship certificate, which states that, “this is merely a formal declaration of Heirship and is not a succession certificate. No valuable Debts and Securities would be transferred in the name of holder on the basis of this certificate and not use for transfer of movable or immovable properties on the basis of this certificate by the Certificate Holder,” the impugned order is issued. 4. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner is legally wedded wife and nominee of the Provident Fund Account of the deceased employee. Heirship certificate is also issued in favour of the Petitioner. In that view of the matter, Respondent No.5 has committed an error in passing the impugned order. The impugned communication, in the facts of the present case, cannot be sustained. In the result, following order: {3} wp10122-26.doc ORDER A. Writ Petition is allowed. B. Impugned communication dated 14th October, 2025 issued by Respondent No.5 is hereby quashed and set aside. C. The Respondents are directed to release provident fund amount of Gous Khan Yusuf Khan in favour of the Petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. [ ABASAHEB D. SHINDE ] [ NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI ] JUDGE JUDGE drp/wp10122-26.doc