LEISHANGTHEM MEMMA DEVI Vs. DIRECTOR, STATE COUNCIL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND TRAINING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction on the respondents to release the entitled GPF amount in favour of her, who is also the nominee of the deceased Leishangthem Chaoba Singh.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that her son Leishangthem Chaoba Singh was working as Engineer Assistant in the State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT) and he had nominated the petitioner as nominee in his GPF account and such record had never been changed before marriage or after the marriage. The petitioner's son died on 25/9/2006 leaving behind the petitioner, his two wives and daughter. After the death of her son, the petitioner requested the authorities to release the GPF amount to her and in this regard, she had also submitted applications dtd. 5/7/2007, 5/10/2017 and finally on 16/11/2017 to the provident fund authorities. However, the said applications remain unattended and the authorities had failed to release the balance GPF amount to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) Respondents 3 and 4 have filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that respondents 3 and 4 only implements the decisions taken by the State authorities in various issues relating to maintenance of GPF, Pension and. etc. Therefore, making the Principal Accountant General/Accountant General responsible for a function in which they does not have any say, except for mere compliance, is not as per the provisions. Coming to the merits of the claim, respondents 3 and 4 stated that on receipt of the application for final withdrawal of GPF in respect of the deceased employee, it was ascertained that the claimant Brojeshwori Devi has not been nominated by the subscriber as per record maintained by the office of the respondents 3 and 4 and valid nominee certificate was also not found enclosed along with the application for withdrawal of the GPF amount. Accordingly, by a letter dtd. 3/4/2018, the respondents 3 and 4 sought for clarification about the right person to whom the GPF balance is payable from the Commissioner, SCERT followed by a reminder dtd. 17/8/2018. Pursuant to the letters of the respondents 3 and 4, the first respondent vide letters dtd. 30/6/2018 and 21/12/2018 instructed to settle the case as per the condition laid down by the Family Court, Manipur and accordingly, the authority for payment of GPF balance has been issued in favour of Brojeshwori Devi on 11/3/2019. It is stated that the status of the petitioner herein was recorded as "now dead" by the Family Court and as such the writ petition cannot be entertained, as the same has been filed by a dead person. As per the existing procedure and arrangement followed, the Principal Accountant General (A&E) is responsible for issuing authority of pension and other retirement benefits after exercising due diligence and exercising all necessary checks so that the amount as per entitlement of the petitioner is authorized. Thus, the respondents 3 and 4 complied with the requirement of the rules and the existing procedure which is not in violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, there is no act of illegal, unlawful and vindictive nature which deprives the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under the Constitution of India and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.