S.B. Sinha, J. - (1.) The petitioners in this application have, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- "(a) A Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents, their men and agents and each one of them to show cause as to why the appropriate steps should not be taken against them for making payment the entire amount of Rs. 1,30,235.28 of the deceased Sahid to the respondent No. 7 who had only ⅛th share in the said amount and further commanding the respondents to make an enquiry forthwith and to punish the person or persons in accordance with law who will be found guilty; (b) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents, their men and agents, and each one of them to make payment ⅞th share of the amount of Rs. 1,30,235.28 of the deceased Sahid to the petitioners and the respondents No. 8 to 11 as per Succession Certificate granted by the District Delegate, South 24-Parganas, Alipore in Act 38 Case No. 506 of 1989."
(2.) The petitioner No. 1 is the second wife of Late Sahid and the petitioner No. 2 is his brother. The respondent No. 7 who is since deceased was the first wife and the respondents No. 8 to 11 are sons and daughters of the sister of late Sahid. The said late Sahid was an employee of Dock Labour Board. He died on 2.10.86. He nominated his first wife in respect of Provident Fund, Gratuity and Bonus. The petitioners applied for and had been granted a Succession Certificate on 13.11.95. It appears that much prior thereto, the amount payable towards provident fund and gratuity had been paid in favour of the respondent No. 7 pursuant to the nomination made in her favour. It appears from the records that the respondent No. 7 was handed over the said amount on an undertaking that he would pay half of the said amount to the petitioner. She admittedly has failed to do the same.
(3.) However, keeping in view the fact that Calcutta Dock Labour Board has paid the amount of Provident Fund, Bonus and Gratuity to original respondent No. 7, this Court now cannot direct it to refund or to pay any further amount in favour of the petitioners. If any undertaking had been given or any indemnity bound had been furnished, keeping is view the admission that the respondent No. 7 has failed to discharge her undertaking by paying half of the said amount in favour of the petitioner No. 1, it would be open to the said respondent to take such action against the heirs and legal representatives of the nominee as is permissible in law. It goes without saying that it would also be open to the petitioner to file a suit for the aforementioned purpose s it is well-known that by reason of nomination the nominee merely act as trustee for the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased and is bound to distribute the mount received by her to all heirs and legal representatives in terms of their share to which they are entitled. However, keeping in view the grant of succession certificate, there cannot be any doubt that the respondents would now be liable to pay unto the petitioner in terms of the aforementioned succession certificate. It also goes without saving that keeping in view the fact that the respondent No. 7 is now dead, the respondent board shall pass an appropriate order relating to payment of family pension in accordance with law. It further goes without saying, in the event there is no dues other than what has been admitted in the affidavit-in-opposition, it will be open to the petitioners to raise their grievance before the appropriate forum.;