IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4619 of 2007 DINESH KUMAR @ DINESH RAM alias Dinesh Ram son of Late Natai Ram alias Dinesh Kumar Rout, resident of village-Chhatapur, police Station-Chhatapur, P.O.- Surpatganj, District-Supaul. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Director-in-Chief, Department of health and Family Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Provident Fund Officer, Purnea. 4. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Araria. 5. The Medical Officer, Incharge Primary Health Centre, Narpatganj, District-Araria ----------- 2 16.04.2010 Heard Mr. Chandra Bhushan Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manoj Kumar Yadav, learned A.C. to G.P.19 for the State. The petitioner claims to be the sole brother of Usha Kumari who died in harness while posted as an Auxiliary Nurse Midwifery on 13.2.2006. The writ petition was filed claiming payment of the death cum retiral dues, admissible to late Usha Kumari, the sister of the present petitioner. The payments were being delayed on pretext of production of succession certificate, under the directions of the Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Narpatganj, District-Araria contained in his letter dated 20.2.2007 placed at Annexure-5 of the writ petition. Learned 2 counsel for the petitioner enclosing a copy of the Life Insurance Policy submits that the petitioner has been named as a nominee of Late Usha Kumari, in the said policy and even the District Provident Officer has certified that the petitioner has been named as the nominee of late Usha Kumari in her provident fund account. Learned counsel thus submits that despite the aforesaid position, the respondents are forcing the petitioner to produce a succession certificate from a Court of competent civil jurisdiction. Learned counsel with reference to a judgment reported in 2009 (4) PLJR 710 (Kajal Kumari versus Union of India) submits that it has been held that a nominee though does not become an absolute owner of the property but is competent to receive the benefits, after the death of the employee. It has further been held that the nominee does not require to produce a Succession Certificate. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the District Provident Fund Officer, Purnea and who has submitted that despite his intimation contained in letter dated 16.12.2006 to the Incharge Medical Officer, Narpatganj, Araria that the petitioner is the brother of 3 late Usha Kumari and has been named as nominee in the account, the response of the Medical Officer, Narpatganj is still awaited. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State and on perusal of the materials available on record of the proceedings in the backdrop of the order of this Court relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the direction contained in Annexure-5 is completely misconceived as also misplaced in view of the categorical nomination of this petitioner to receive the benefits. Once the petitioner has been named as a nominee in the Life Insurance Policy as well as in the Provident Fund Account of late Usha Kumari, the authorities ought not to have been delayed the payment thereof to the petitioner on the pretext of production of a Succession Certificate. In the circumstances, the respondent Incharge, Medical Officer, Narpatganj, Araria is directed to process the provident fund, Group Insurance and other admissible dues of the late Usha Kumari and make payment of the same to the petitioner who in turn would be 4 required to furnish an indemnity bond undertaking to indemnify in case there is a counter claim in relation to the benefits received by him. The payment aforesaid should be made to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order together with copy of the indemnity bond by the petitioner. The writ petition is allowed. Bibhash ( Jyoti Saran, J.)