Nomination Itself Won’t Give Mother Better Claim Over Total GPF Amount Than Wife: Supreme Court Allows Appeal Of Government Servant’s Widow

The Appeal before the Apex Court involved a tussle between the wife and mother of the deceased regarding the release of General Provident Fund amount accrued in the course of employment of the deceased in the Defence Accounts Department, Government of India.

The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh held, “The position stated by us above is no longer under any manner of doubt. Granted that the nomination was in favour of respondent no.1, however, the condition stipulated in the nomination form rendered such nomination, at the time of death, void. In other words, the nomination itself would not give respondent no.1 a better claim over the total GPF amount than the appellant.”

Advocate Hari Vishnu represented the Appellant while AOR A. Selvin Raja represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

When the deceased joined service in the year 2000, as per the applicable rules, he nominated the respondent mother as the recipient of GPF, Central Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme and the Death cum Retirement Gratuity. In 2003, the deceased married the appellant and subsequently nominated her as the recipient for CGEIS and DCRG only. The deceased died in service, and the appellant received all benefits arising from the employment of the deceased totalling Rs 60 lakh. In 2021, when she applied for the funds accumulated in the GPF to be released, the Official respondents refused the same, on account of the first respondent being the nominee on record. The matter was pleaded before the Central Administrative Tribunal by the Appellant.

The CAT noted that although initially, the nomination of the Respondent was valid, it subsequently became invalid but was not changed accordingly by the deceased and thus had to be declared invalid by a competent authority. Since no nomination persisted at the time of death, it was held that the amount had to be released in equal shares to all members of the family. As such, it was directed that the appellant and respondent both would receive half of the total amount. On appeal, the High Court set aside findings of the CAT and held that the amount of GPF would have to be paid to the Petitioner alone as per the rules, and the first Respondent may then claim her share in appropriate proceedings as provided under the law.

Reasoning

Referring to Rule 476(5) of the Official Manual (Part V), the Bench explained that the Rules do indeed provide that when a nomination becomes invalid, the amount is to be distributed/divided amongst all eligible members, but equally it has to be seen that between his marriage in 2003 and death in 2021, each year, as per Rules, presented an opportunity to the deceased to alter the nomination for the GPF which he did not.

It was noticed that the nomination form was clear and the nomination in favour of the first respondent would become invalid upon his acquiring a family (marriage or otherwise), as such, by function thereof, it became invalid in 2003. “He did not alter the nomination to comply therewith. It is also true that respondent nos. 2 to 4 are not obligated to ask such a subscriber to alter or cancel the nominations and it is the duty of the subscriber to do so. It is to provide for these very situations where a subscriber neglects to or fails to make such changes, that Rules have been prescribed, laying down how the money is to be distributed amongst survivors”, it added.

The Bench noticed that Rule 476 (V) stipulates a mandate that, upon acquiring family, the nomination will become invalid. “That being the case, even in view of the fact that the deceased had not made changes to the nomination for GPF, the earlier nomination cannot be held to be valid”, it held.

Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench ordered the GPF of the deceased to be distributed between the appellant and the first respondent. “It is a matter of record that the appellant has already received her share of GPF amount, as ordered by CAT. The remainder half of the money in question which currently stands deposited before the Registrar, High Court (Appellate side) shall be released in favour of Respondent No.1 herein”, it held.

Cause Title: Smt. Bolla Malathi v. B. Suguna (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1391)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocates Hari Vishnu, Likhi Chand, AOR Venkita Subramoniam T.R

Respondent: AOR A. Selvin Raja, ASG Brijender Chahar, AOR Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advocates Jagdish Chandra, Bhakti Vardhan Singh, Gayatri Mishra

Click here to read/download Judgment