Uma Baksi vs Union Of India & Ors

Amrita Sinha, J

In spite of service none appears on behalf of the respondent nos. 5 and 6.

The affidavit-of-service filed in Court is taken on record.

The petitioner is the second wife of an employee who was serving in the Eastern Coalfields Limited. The employee concerned retired upon attaining his normal age of superannuation on June 3, 2009 and expired on August 16, 2011.

After death his widow, the petitioner herein and his daughters from the first marriage, respondent nos. 5 & 6 herein, put forward their claim for obtaining the death benefits of the deceased employee.

The employee concerned had incorporated the name of the petitioner as nominee in the nomination form for disbursement of the provident fund and gratuity. In accordance with the nomination that was exercised by the employee the provident fund and the gratuity amount has been disbursed in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner is also receiving the family pension after death of the said employee.

Now, the petitioner has raised a claim with regard to the money that has accumulated on account of the performance related pay of the employee. According to the petitioner the said money has to be disbursed in her favour as she has been indicated as his nominee.

The prayer of the petitioner was considered by the Company pursuant to a direction passed by this Court on January 17, 2019 in WP No. 239(W) of 2019 whereby the Court directed the General Manager (P/EE), Chairman-cum-Managing Director's Office, Eastern Coalfields Limited to take a reasoned decision on the petitioner's representation dated March 23, 2018 in accordance with the applicable Rules/Regulations/ Circulars/Notifications within a stipulated time frame. The Court directed that the said respondent shall give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the two daughters of the deceased employee from his first marriage.

The respondents have taken a decision and communicated the same to the petitioner by a communication dated March 11, 2019 wherein it has been mentioned that as there is more than one claims for the amount accumulated on account of performance related pay lying in the credit of the employee none of the claims can be dismissed and it is only the competent authority who has the power to decide the disbursement in absence of any prevalent rules of the Company. The General Manager opined that he was not the competent authority nor was it within his jurisdiction to accept or deny the claims raised by the heirs of the deceased.

The daughters of the deceased have expressed their intention to share the money equally amongst the claimants but the widow has categorically stated that she does not want to share the money with the daughters and no compromise can be arrived at between the claimants.

The General Manager was of the opinion that as there was no set Rules/Regulations/Policies related to disbursement of the performance related pay in case of death of a retired executive, the claimants were directed to settle the matter before the competent Court.

Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has filed the instant writ application. According to the petitioner as her name has been mentioned as nominee in the provident fund records of the employee the payment regarding performance related pay should also be paid to her. As nominee she is entitled to receive all payments that are due and payable in favour of the deceased employee.

The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that, as the Rule is silent with regard to disbursement of the payment in connection with the performance related pay, in case there are more than one claimants, they are not obliged to pay the said money in favour of only one heir, and accordingly, the parties were directed to approach the appropriate Court for settlement of their claims.

The learned advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 relied upon a judgement delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sipra Sengupta vs. Mridul Sengupta & Ors., reported in (2009) 10 SCC 680 paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 regarding the status of the nominee. The learned advocate has also relied upon an unreported judgement of the Gujarat High Court passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court on May 7, 2012 in the matter of Jignesh v. Bank of India on the self-same proposition.

I have heard the submissions made on behalf of the parties. It is a settled law that the nominee is a person who has been named for receiving the property on behalf of a person who was actually entitled to receive the same. The nominee is required to act as an agent or a trustee on behalf of the person(s) legally entitled to receive the property of the deceased. The nomination does not confer any beneficial interest on the nominee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shipra Sengupta (supra) directed the bank to release half of the amount of the general provident fund to the appellant along with interest. The Court held that the amount has to be claimed by the heirs of the deceased, in accordance with the law of succession governing them.

In the instant case the daughters of the first marriage as well as the widow are the first class heirs of the deceased employee. In the absence of any provision for disbursement of the amount which accrued on account of the performance related pay of the employee to only one heir thereby depriving the other heirs, the same has to be disbursed in equal shares amongst all the legal heirs. The same cannot be paid only to the widow.

The claim of the petitioner that as her name has been recorded as nominee in the provident fund account of the employee the money on account of performance related pay has also to be paid to her is without any basis. The Company has already disbursed the dues on account of provident fund and gratuity to the widow in accordance with the nomination that was made by the employee.

As the employee did not nominate the wife to receive the amount on account of performance related pay she cannot claim the same in exclusion of the other legal heirs. All the heirs and representatives are legally entitled to receive the monetary benefits which accrued in favour of the deceased employee, in accordance with the laws of succession.

The respondent no. 2 being the General Manager (P/EE), Chairman-cum-Managing Director's Office, Eastern Coalfields Limited is directed to disburse the amount which is lying due on account of performance related pay, in favour of all the legal heirs, in equal shares, within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of a copy of this order.

WP No. 13606(W) of 2019 is disposed of accordingly.