THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No.13249 OF 2003 ORDER: This writ petition is instituted by Smt. H. Haseena Begum, seeking for directions to the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (henceforth referred to as ‘the Corporation), as well as the Provident Fund Commissioner to settle the pensionary benefits of her deceased husband on her. It is averred that the writ petitioner’s husband Sri H. Abdul Khader worked with the Corporation as a Leading Hand at its Zonal Workshop, Kadapa and he died while in service on 11-05-2001. Prior to his death Sri Abdul Khader appears to have lodged a declaration- cum-nominee form with the Corporation’s Employees Provident Fund Trust on 18-09-1990. In the said declaration-cum-nomination form Sri Abdul Khader nominated Smt. Haseena Begum, his wife, to be his nominee. It appears that Sri Abdul Khader joined the service of the Corporation on 06-07-1977. He has been enrolled for Provident Fund with effect from 01-01-1978. On behalf of the Works Manager of the Corporation at Kadapa, its Law Officer filed a counter affidavit. In Paragraph No.3 of the said counter affidavit, the fact relating to the declaration-cum-nomination form filed by Sri Abdul Khader has been set out in the following words: “It is submitted that as per the records available with the Corporation late Sri H.A. Khader nominated Smt. H. Haseena Begum the petitioner to receive all the settlement benefits after his death.” In view of this statement of fact averred by the 2nd respondent, there is hardly any doubt that the writ petitioner herein has been nominated by her husband during his lifetime to be his nominee for receiving the benefits under the Provident Fund Scheme. The 2nd respondent has received a parallel claim from another individual and as a result of that the 2nd respondent has been delaying forwarding of necessary papers to the 1st Provident Fund Commissioner for settling the benefits payable to the writ petitioner herein. That fact was adverted to in Paragraph Nos. 4 and 5 of the same counter affidavit. It is also brought out that the person, who lodged parallel claim has already instituted a civil suit bearing O.S.No.132 of 2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Kadapa. The petitioner herein has moved W.P.M.P.No.32630 of 2009 seeking directions to the respondents to grant pensionary benefits to her. Along with the said miscellaneous petition, the Judgment rendered by the Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa in O.S.No.132 of 2002, on 28-09-2007 has been enclosed. After holding a full-fledged trial in the matter, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa, dismissed the said civil suit holding that the plaintiffs are not entitled to 58 out of 144th share in the amounts mentioned in scheduled – A to the Plaint. In view of this judgment rendered in O.S.No.132 of 2002, instituted by the parallel claimant and others, the roadblocks created in the way of the petitioner are cleared. But however, on the precious plea that the Judgment and Decree rendered by the Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa in O.S.No.132 of 2002, is the subject matter of appeal, which is pending, necessary follow up action is not initiated by the 2nd respondent so far. It must be realized by the 2nd respondent that the moment an employee dies and he has nominated someone prior to his death as his nominee, the 2nd respondent is required to act in accordance with law and forward the claim of such a nominee for receiving the benefits under the Provident Fund Scheme. That cannot be delayed. It is a different matter if a competent civil court grants injunction refraining the 2nd respondent from doing so. In the absence of any such order, the 2nd respondent is not justified to keep the issue pending for years together. The conduct of the 2nd respondent is all the more blameworthy, inasmuch as three years are over when the civil suit O.S.No.132 of 2002 was dismissed. The parallel claimant has been impleaded as 3rd respondent to this writ petition. No plea, worth serious consideration, has been raised on behalf of the 3rd respondent, for me, to refrain from directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to settle the benefits in favour of the writ petitioner immediately. It is well settled principle that a nominee acts as a trustee of the individual, who nominated such a person. The benefits that a nominee receives on behalf of the principal claimant are to hold the money in trust on behalf of those, who have a claim or a stake therein. By withholding the papers of the petitioner herein, the 2nd respondent has prevented her to discharge the functions as a trustee of the deceased Sri Abdul Khader. There is no justification, whatsoever, behind the conduct of the 2nd respondent. Hence, the 2nd respondent is directed to forward all such papers, which are needed and required by the 1st respondent to settle the benefits in favour of the writ petitioner. At any rate, this task shall be completed within a period of 15 days. If the 1st respondent seek any clarifications, the 2nd respondent shall clarify the same within a maximum period of 15 days from the date of receipt of such a memo from the 1st respondent and shall not delay it beyond the said period. On receipt of such forms from the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent was directed to settle the benefits including payment of monthly pension to the writ petitioner treating her as the nominee of the deceased Abdul Khader within thirty days. It would be a different matter for the writ petitioner and the 3rd respondent to settle any inter se disputes amongst themselves. The respondents 1 and 2, for facilitating the resolution of these disputes, need not delay any further the settlement. With this, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J mrk 11th March 2011