R. M. Sabai, J. - (1.) -
(2.) DISPUTE in this petition filed by brother of a deceased employee of this court is about payment of the amount of group insurance scheme between him an additional nominee and the wife of deceased. His claim was rejected by the Deputy Registrar because the nomination made in his favour was invalid. The representation made to the Chief Justice was also rejected. Therefore, the petitioner seeks quashing of the two orders and a direction to opposite parties to pay the amount to petitioner instead of opposite party. Group Insurance Scheme was introduced for every State employee in 1976 as a welfare measure for benefit of the family members of deceased. In its two years' working it was found that difficulty arose about payment, therefore, in 1978 the government issued a detailed order to obviate delay and provided for nomination of family members in order of preference indicated in it. It further provided that the order of preference could be changed for reasons to be disclosed by the employee. In pursuance of this order the deceased filled the form and nominated his mother. The petitioner was mentioned as additional nominee. But he did not give any reason for excluding the wife who is at the top in the order of preference given in the order. It was for this reason that the Deputy Registrar did not accept his claim. In absence of any reason excluding the wife the nomination was not in accordance with 1978 order. Attempt has been made to demonstrate by filing two letters that the relations between the two were strained. May be but that should have come out from deceased at time of filling the form. Mother pre-deceased the insured. Therefore, petitioner claims not only as nominee but also as heir of the principal nominee. This, however, ignores that nomination of even mother to exclusion of wife without any reason was not valid. Learned counsel urged that defect if any was a mere irregularity which could not vitiate the nomination as the intention of deceased to exclude the wife was clear. Right to claim the insured amount is based on nomination and not because petitioner is entitled under law to it. Therefore, the nomination had to be strictly in the manner indicated. Such a defect which goes to the root cannot be accepted as irregularity only. Reliance is placed on a government order issued in 1986 superseding the 1978 order and dispensing with giving of reasons. It could not apply to nomination in 1979 and to cause of action which occurred in 1981 due to death of insured. In any case it having been held by Supreme Court in Sarbati Devi v. Usha Devi, AIR 1984 SC 346 that the status of nominee is only of a trustee who is entitled to receive the amount for benefit of heirs in law, the petitioner has no claim. The last effort of the learned counsel to direct the insurance company to pay amount to petitioner as trustee appears in circumstances to deprive opposite party of that which is due to her under law and make her run to courts to seek redress against petitioner thus rendering her claim illusory.
(3.) IN the result this petition fails and is rejected. There shall be no order as to costs. The interim order shall stand discharged. Petition rejected.;