Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from an order of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court dated 11 November 1993 in CWJC No.13107/92. The dispute concerned payment of General Provident Fund (G.P.F.) and other dues of a deceased teacher, Shyama Devi, who died on 17 August 1988. She had executed a nomination in favour of certain persons entitling them to receive the G.P.F. and other amounts. Three persons laid claims to the amount and the State made over the payment to them. Later, the respondent claimed to be the son of a brother of the deceased teacher. The authorities asked him to produce a succession certificate. By the time he produced the certificate, the amount had already been paid to the earlier claimants. The respondent then filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking payment. The Division Bench allowed the writ petition and directed the State to make payment to the respondent. The State appealed by special leave to the Supreme Court. The core legal issue was whether the State could be directed to pay the respondent after it had already discharged its liability in terms of the nomination made by the deceased teacher. The Supreme Court considered the fact that the State had paid the amount to the nominees in accordance with the nomination. The Court held that once the State had discharged its liability under the nomination, it could not be compelled to pay twice over merely because the respondent subsequently obtained a succession certificate. The inter se claims between the rival claimants, if any, had to be adjudicated only before a regular constituted forum such as a civil court, and not in writ proceedings against the State. The High Court's direction was therefore illegal. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court, and clarified that any other claim could be discharged in accordance with law. The order did not preclude the respondent from taking action according to law before the appropriate forum. The judgment was delivered by a bench of K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ., on 5 February 1996, and reported as JT 1996 (2) 294 and 1996 SCALE (2) 217.
Headnote
A) Service Law - General Provident Fund - Nomination and Succession Certificate - Not mentioned - The deceased teacher nominated certain persons to receive GPF; the State paid three claimants accordingly. The respondent later produced a succession certificate, but the High Court directed payment to him. The Supreme Court held that the State had discharged its liability under the nomination and could not be compelled to pay twice over; inter se claims must be adjudicated in the regular civil forum. Held that the appeal is allowed and the High Court order is set aside (Paras not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the State is liable to pay the respondent after having already discharged its liability in terms of the nomination made by the deceased teacher, and whether the High Court could direct such payment in writ proceedings.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; State not liable to pay twice; respondent may take action according to law.
Law Points
- Nomination governs payment of GPF
- State discharged liability upon payment to nominees
- inter se claims must be adjudicated in regular civil forum
- State cannot be compelled to pay twice on succession certificate
- writ court cannot direct double payment
