Nominee Of Govt Employee Merely A Custodian, Benefit After Death Of Employee Conferred To Legal Heirs: Allahabad High Court Reiterates

Recently, the Allahabad High Court reiterated the position settled by the Supreme Court in Shipra Sengupta v. Mridul Sengupta and others (2009) that a 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/her legal heirs.

Petitioner's ex-husband died after retiring as an Assistant Teacher at Maharaja Tej Singh, Junior High School Aurandh, Vikash Khand Sultanganj, District Mainpuri. Though the husband had wedded again, the petitioner's name was recorded as his nominee. Petitioner claimed 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 that though Sri Usha Devi was the lawfully wedded wife of the deceased employee, she had abandoned him many years ago. It was argued that Sri Usha Devi had into a compromise in proceedings under Section 125 CrPC and had never claimed any maintenance allowance. Accordingly, she had abandoned her right.

The Court relied on Shipra Sengupta v. Mridul Sengupta and others wherein the Supreme Court had held

“In view of the clear legal position, 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. In other words, 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 comprising of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery 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. Accordingly, the Court upheld the benefit granted to Shri Usha Devi as being the legal heir of the deceased employee. It said:

“Today 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/ 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 writ petition was dismissed.

Case Title: Rajni Rani vs. State of UP and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 20 [WRIT - A No. - 11483 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 20

Click Here To Read/Download Order