IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 431 of 2009 (M/S) Om Kumari Rai wife of late Narendra Mohan Rai, resident of 41-D, Sewak Ashram Road, Dehradun, District Dehradun. ……Petitioner. Versus Union of India through Head Post Master General, State of Uttarakhand, Dehradun and another. …….Respondents. Sri Shobhit Saharia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Sri S.S. Chauhan, Standing Counsel (Central Government) for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. Dated:-28.10.2009 Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard Sri Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.S. Chauhan, learned Standing Counsel (Central Government) for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. This is urgency application no. 2851 of 2009 accompanied with an affidavit. The ground shown is sufficient to make out a case for urgency. The urgency application is allowed. The case is taken up today itself for disposal as requested by the learned counsel for the parties. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 to make good the payment of the amount lying in Account 112973 in respect of which petitioner has been granted a due and proper succession certificate by the court of competent jurisdiction. 2 The succession certificate has been annexed at page 25 of the petition which was issued by the Civil Judge (S.D.), Dehradun in favour of the petitioner. The counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents wherein in paragraph 4 it has been stated that as per the provisions of Rule of Post Office Small Saving Scheme Part II a nominee is the person competent to collect money due. It is further stated in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit that no reference of nominee is contained in the succession certificate whereas the petitioner is well acquainted existence of nominee before obtaining succession certificate. It is pertinent to mention here that it is not disputed fact that the nominee is not the legal heir of the deceased. This fact has also been admitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon paragraph 13 of the Judgment in the case of Vishin N. Khanchandani and another Vs. Vidya Lachmandas Khanchandani and another reported in AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2747, which reads as under:- “Para 13. In the light of what has been noticed hereinabove, it is apparent that though language and phraseology of Section 6 of the Act is different than the one used in Section 39 of the Insurance Act, yet, the effect of both the provisions is the same. The Act only makes the provisions regarding avoiding delay and expense in making the payment of the amount of the national savings certificates, to the nominee of holder, which has been considered to be beneficial both for the holder as also for the post office. Any amount paid to the nominee after valid deductions becomes the estate of the deceased. Such an estate devolves upon all persons who are entitled to succession under law, custom or testament of the deceased-holder. In other words, the law laid down by this Court in Sarbati Devi’s case, AIR 1984 SC 3 346 holds field and is equally applicable to the nominee becoming entitled to the payment of the amount on account of national savings certificates received by him under Section 6 read with Section 7 of the Act who in turn is liable to return the amount to those, in whose favour law creates beneficial interest, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Act.” In view of the aforesaid Judgment of the Apex Court, the legal heirs are entitled to receive the amount which was deposited by the deceased in TDR account. The similar controversy in the said case was before the Apex Court and the case before this Court, the money was deposited by way of National Savings Certificate scheme and the controversy is covered by the aforesaid Judgment of the Apex Court. The objection raised by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 2 to the fact that the nominee was not made party in the succession certificate, cannot be accepted. Nominee was not necessary party. If the nominee receives any amount he is liable to pay that amount to the legal heirs of the deceased. Moreover, he was also not necessary party to the proceedings. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent no. 2 is directed to release the amount in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the succession certificate. All the pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. (B.S.Verma, J.) 28.10.2009 RMY