HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITON No.26068 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioner claims to be the wife of the 3rd respondent, who is working as Superintendent in the Andhra University, the 1st respondent. It is stated that when he joined the service, he has shown the petitioner as nominee in the service records. On coming to know that he is living with another women, the 4th respondent herein, and begot two children, the respondents 5 and 6 herein, the petitioner sought information from the University on several aspects pertaining to service of the 3rd respondent. Information was furnished on 11-02-2010 stating that the 3rd respondent nominated the 4th respondent for family pension, and the respondents 5 and 6 for Gratuity and Provident Fund respectively. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents 1 and 2 are under obligation to incorporate her name as nominee of the 3rd respondent. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent. 3. It is the prerogative of an employee to mention the name of any person as nominee. The person, whose name was mentioned, would be entitled to receive the death cum retirement benefits as a representative of other legal heirs of the deceased employee. As long as the employee is alive, the nominee has no role to play. 4. In case, the petitioner is of the view that she alone is entitled to receive the service benefits of the 3rd respondent after his death, she has to institute proceedings in the concerned Court of law. There is hardly anything, which the respondents 1 and 2 can do about it. 5. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to seek declaration with regard to her status vis-à-vis the respondents 3 to 6 in a Court of law. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J September 19, 2011. KTL