The Allahabad High Court in the case Rajni Rani v. State of UP and others observed and has held that the position settled by the Supreme Court in the case Shipra Sengupta v. Mridul Sengupta and others, wherein the court stated that the nominee of a government employee is merely a custodian, however, any benefits that accrue after the death of such government employee can only be conferred upon his or her legal heirs.
The court in the case observed that the petitioner ex-husband died after retiring as an Assistant Teacher at Maharaja Tej Singh, Junior High School Aurandh, Vikash Khand Sultanganj, District Mainpuri and though the husband had wedded again, the name of the petitioner was recorded as his nominee.
It has also been claimed by the petitioner the entitlement to the retiral benefits based on her name being mentioned as his nominee and the fact that she was his wife for many years.
It was argued before the court that though Sri Usha Devi was the lawfully wedded wife of the deceased employee, she had abandoned him many years ago.
Further, it has been argued that Sri Usha Devi had into a compromise in proceedings as stated under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, CrPC and had never claimed any maintenance allowance. Thus, she had abandoned her right.
The court also referred to the matter Shipra Sengupta v. Mridul Sengupta and others, wherein it has been held by the Supreme Court that it is made abundantly clear that the amount under any head can be received by the nominee, but the amount can be claimed by the heirs of the deceased in accordance with the law of succession governing them. Thus, the nomination does not confer any beneficial interest on the nominee. In the instant case the amounts so received are to be distributed according to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
The bench headed by Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery in the case observed that Shri Usha Devi was the lawfully wedded wife of the deceased employee and at the time of his death, they were not divorced.
The court upheld the benefit granted to Shri Usha Devi as being the legal heir of the deceased employee.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case stated that Respondent-10 is claiming her right and as held in Shipra Sengupta (supra) a nominee of a Government employee is just a custodian and benefit after death of Government employee has to be conferred or granted in accordance with law, i.e., to his or her legal heirs and in the present case Respondent-10 is the legal heir being legally wedded wife of Sri Bhojraj Singh and she was never divorced, therefore, I do not find any illegality in impugned order.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the writ plea.
