Allowed

Smt. Priyanka Tripathi v. the Managing Director and 4 Others

Allahabad HC9 Oct 2023WRIA/15109/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a writ petition directing the employer to pay death cum retirement benefits to the deceased employee's wife, who was the sole nominee in the service records. The Court held that nomination satisfies the employer's obligation, regardless of pending civil suits determining beneficial ownership.

What did the court decide?

Mandamus issued ordering respondents to pay all post-retiral benefits to the petitioner within 6 weeks.

Smt. Priyanka Tripathi Vs the Managing Director and 4… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:194357

¶2

Court No. - 33

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15109 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Priyanka Tripathi Respondent :- The Managing Director And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Sharma,Sanjay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Abhishek Srivastava

¶5

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶6

Parties have exchanged affidavits.

¶7

Admit.

¶8

Heard forthwith.

¶9

Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Abhishek Srivastava, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 5.

¶10

In compliance with the order dated 25.09.2023, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonbhadra has submitted a report dated 05.10.2023.

¶11

A perusal of the report shows that O.S. No. 173 of 2020, Vipulpati Tripathi v. Smt. Priyanka and others, is still at an incipient stage. A written statement has been filed by defendant no. 1, Smt. Priyanka Tripathi, who is the petitioner here, on 01.02.2023, but written statements by the other defendants have yet not been filed. The next date fixed for the purpose of filing of written statements is 06.11.2023.

¶12

Learned Counsel for the respondents, Mr. Abhishek Srivastava has produced before the Court the service book relating to the petitioner’s deceased husband, the late Girijeshpati Tripathi, son of the late Chandra Kishor Tripathi.

¶13

A perusal of page no. 6 of the service book, which relates to nomination, indicates that in the column of nominees, the sole name is that of his wife Smt. Priyanka Tripathi. The respondents are resisting to pay her husband's death-cum-retirement benefits, inhibited by the fact that a suit has been filed before the learned Civil

¶14

Judge (Senior Divison), Sonbhadra, being O.S. No. 173 of 2020, by Vipulpati Tripathi, the petitioner’s husband’s nephew, propounding a Will, bequeathing him all his assets, including the death-cum-retirement benefits.

¶15

So far as post retiral benefits are concerned, in the hands of the employer, these are held in trust for the legal heirs of the deceased who may be entitled to it. But, that is one aspect of the matter. If a deceased employee has made a nomination in the service records, nominating one of his heirs to receive the death-cum-retirement benefits, so far as the employers are concerned, it is the end of the matter. The payment of death-cum-retirement benefits made to the nominated heir of a deceased employee gives valid discharge to the employers vis-a-vis all the heirs. It is no obligation for the employer, holding the deceased’s death-cum-retirement benefits, to find out precisely which of the heirs under the law is beneficially entitled to receive the deceased employee’s death-cum-retirement benefits.

¶16

A nominee in the service records receives the post retiral benefits, not beneficially always. He/she may receive it in some part for his/her own benefit, and, in some part, for the benefits of the other heirs. Still more, the nominee may receive it without holding any beneficial interest or holding an entirely beneficial interest. It is all irrelevant, so far as the employer is concerned. Therefore, there should absolutely be no impediment for the employer, the respondents in this case, in paying the death-cum-retirement benefits to the deceased’s wife, who is recorded in the service book, as the nominee entitled to receive those benefits.

¶17

In the event there is a claim by the heirs to the whole of the death-cum-retirement benefits or a part of that against the petitioner, it is open to them to establish it before the Civil Court. Vipulpati Tripathi has already filed a suit on the basis a Will said to be executed by the petitioner’s deceased husband, bequeathing him amongst others, his death-cum-retirement benefits. It is not the respondents’ case that there is any order of temporary injunction passed by the learned Civil Judge restraining the respondents from disbursing these benefits in the petitioner’s favour, who is party defendant no. 1 to the suit. Unless the respondents have been injuncted from

¶18

disbursing the death-cum-retirement benefits, there is absolutely no impediment in the recorded nominee's way being paid the death-cum-retirement benefits. Even otherwise, the nominee is the deceased’s wife and the nomination is apparently quite natural.

¶19

At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner has brought to this Court’s notice, a decision of the Supreme Court in Shipra Sengupta v. Mridul Sengupta and others, (2009) 10 SCC 680 and drawn the Court’s attention to the following observations of their Lordships:

¶20

“18. In view of the clear legal position, it is made abundantly clear that the amount in any head can be received by the nominee, but the amount can be claimed by the heirs of the deceased in accordance with law of succession governing them. In other words, nomination does not confer any beneficial interest on the nominee. In the instant case amounts so received are to be distributed according to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

¶21

The State Bank of India is directed to release half of the amount of general provident fund to the appellant now within two months from today along with interest......"

¶22

This Court finds that what has been held by their Lordships is no different from the view that this Court has taken hereinabove.

¶23

In the circumstances, this petition succeeds and is allowed and a mandamus is issued to each of respondent nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, ordering them to pay all the post retiral benefits to the petitioner on account of the services of her deceased husband, the late Girijeshpati Tripathi within 6 weeks of date.

¶24

This order, however, will not operate if there is an order of temporary injunction or other injunction passed by the Civil Court restraining the employers from disbursing the post retiral benefits in the petitioner’s favour, passed in O.S. No. 173 of 2020 or in any other competent suit or proceedings.

¶25

This order will also not be construed by any party or the Court of competent jurisdiction trying the suit or other proceedings to mean that the petitioner has any beneficial interest in the post retiral benefits released in her favour. The concerned Civil Court will decide the parties’ entitlement in accordance with law.

¶26

Let this order be communicated to the Managing Director, U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam, Shakti Bhawan-14, Ashok Marg, Lucknow, the Chief Engineer, Human Resource, U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam, Shakti Bhawan-14, Ashok Marg, Lucknow, the Chief Engineer (Administration), Anpara Doab Pariyojana Anpara, Sonbhadra, the Executive Engineer, Parichalan General Division 'A', Taapiya Pariyojana, Anpara, Sonbhadra and the Executive Engineer, Operation & Chemical Division, Anpara, Sonbhadra by the Registrar (Compliance).

¶27

Order Date :- 9.10.2023 Prashant D.

¶28

Digitally signed by :- PRASHANT DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Priyanka Tripathi v. the Managing Director and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Priyanka Tripathi v. the Managing Director and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sata Nand Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijay Pal Singh Vs Union of India and 2 Ors.

Smt. Shashi Bala and Others Vs Sri Pratap Singh and Another

Mukul Anand Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Bhanu Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others