THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.22349 of 2010 ORDER: The 3rd respondent is employed in the railways. The petitioner is said to be his first wife. The petitioner alleges that her husband is now residing with his second wife, the 4th respondent, so much so, in the service records also, he nominated her as the beneficiary. She made a representation, dated 19.08.2010, to respondents 1 and 2, with a prayer to enter her name in the service records of the 3rd respondent, as nominee. Her grievance is that, no action has been taken thereon. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Pushpender Kaur, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2. Making nomination of dependants, or recipients of benefits, is the prerogative of an employee. Law does not insist that a particular relation of an employee must be nominated. In a given case, an employee may nominate his mother, father, brothers, wife, children or even a stranger to him, as nominee. Further, it is not at all the concern of an employer to verify as to who exactly is the actual dependant of the employee. Such disputes are to be resolved by the concerned persons by approaching a Court of competent civil jurisdiction. Respondents 1 and 2 cannot be expected to take any action on the representation made by the petitioner. Therefore, the question of directing them to do so, does not arise. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to work out her remedies in a civil Court. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.13.09.2010. GJ