THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU and THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI WRIT APPEAL No. 1486 OF 2009 Dated: 24-02-2010 Between: Katam Renuka and two others ... APPELLANTS AND The Singareni Colleries Company Limited, rep., by its Chief General Manager, Yellandu, Khammam District and three others ... RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU and THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI WRIT APPEAL No. 1486 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Nisar Ahmad Kakru) Respondent No.4, mother of the deceased employee Dr. K. Ravinder, having been denied share out of the death benefits of her son, resultantly writ petition, which came to be disposed of with the following directions: “a) The petitioners and respondent No.4, who are the Class-I legal heirs of late Dr. Ravinder, shall be entitled to receive 1/4th share, each, from out of the amounts payable by respondents 1 to 3; b) If the petitioners are already withdrawn any amount, respective shares shall be adjusted, from out of the amounts that are yet to be paid; c) In view of the settlement of the claim as between the petitioners and the 4th respondent, O.S.No.22 of 2008 in the Court of I Additional District Judge, Warangal, shall stand closed, and it shall not be necessary for the trial Court to continue the suit any longer; and d) Respondents 1 to 3 shall release the funds, as indicated above, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;” It is this order the appellants are aggrieved of and mainly on the ground that the entitlement has to flow from nomination alone and nomination being in favour of wife – appellant No.1, the judgment is not sustainable. Answer to the objection raised is readily available from the judicial pronouncement handed down by the Apex Court in Shipra Sengupta v.Mridul Sengupta and others[1], wherein it is held that the nomination cannot confer any beneficial interest on the nominee, envisaging further that the disbursement of the benefits has to be made to the heirs of the deceased, in accordance with the law of succession governing their rights. Going by law of succession, we find no fault with the judgment of the learned single Judge. Dismissed. T. MEENA KUMARI, J NISAR AHMAD KAKRU, CJ 24-02-2010 ks [1] 2009 (6) ALD 51 (SC)