THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.33896 of 1998 ORDER: One Smt.Sattemma was employed as Sweeper in the first respondent-bank in the year 1968. The petitioner is son and respondents 2 to 5 are her daughters. Sattemma died on 28.09.1997. The petitioner states that himself and his sisters were paid a sum of Rs.32,171/- in equal shares towards the provident fund, and there is still an amount of Rs.38,272/- to be paid with interest. He further states that his mother was entitled for the benefit of group insurance scheme and a sum of Rs.75,000/- under it was not extended. Another complaint of the petitioner is that the funeral expenses of Rs.5,000/- was payable only to him, but respondents 2 to 5 were unauthorisedly paid Rs.1,000/- each. This Writ Petition is filed with a prayer to direct the first respondent to pay Rs.38,282/- being the balance of provident fund, Rs.75,000/- towards group insurance and Rs.4,000/- which is said to have been unauthorisedly paid to respondents 2 to 5. The first respondent filed a counter-affidavit. It is stated that the employee switched over from contributory fund scheme, to pension scheme and the accumulated amount of provident fund being Rs.37,968/- was already paid to the petitioner and respondents 2 to 5 as per the nomination made by the deceased employee. According to the first respondent, in case there exists any group insurance in respect of the employee, the concerned insurance company has to settle the claim. The amount of Rs.5,000/- representing funeral expenses is said to have been paid to the children of the employee in equal shares. The record of this case discloses that on quite large number of occasions, there was no representation for the petitioner. Today also there is no representation. Heard, Smt.P.Balarani, learned counsel for the first respondent. A perusal of the record discloses that the petitioner was not posted with full particulars and he reeled under the impression that certain amount was payable towards arrears of provident fund. Once the employee had switched over to a different scheme with effect from 01.11.1993 and the accumulated provident fund has already been paid, the claim made by the petitioner cannot be accepted. The petitioner does not dispute that respondents 2 to 5 are his sisters. He cannot deny their entitlement particularly when the employee had nominated all her children. The first respondent cannot be held liable to pay the group insurance amount. Viewed from any angle, the relief claimed by the petitioner cannot be granted. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dated:05.12.2008 GJ