-
by Admin
15 February 2026 5:35 AM
“Even If Subscriber Didn’t Cancel It, Nomination Becomes Void Upon Marriage” – In a decisive ruling reinforcing the primacy of statutory rules over administrative inertia, the Supreme Court set aside the Bombay High Court’s judgment and held that a nomination under the General Provident Fund (Central Services) Rules, 1960 automatically becomes invalid upon the subscriber acquiring a family, such as through marriage.
The Court concluded that the mother of a deceased government servant, though originally nominated for GPF benefits, could not claim exclusive entitlement after the subscriber married, especially when the nomination form itself specified that it would lapse upon acquiring a family.
Justice Sanjay Karol, writing for the Bench also comprising Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, noted:
“It may be so that the Rules do not provide for auto-cancellation, but they certainly provide for the eventuality where the nomination duly filled by the subscriber does not subsist. The Rule stipulates a mandate that, upon acquiring family, the nomination will become invalid.”
“Nomination is Not Ownership”: Court Reiterates That Nominee Is Only a Trustee of Benefits
Reiterating the settled principle that a nominee is merely a recipient, not a legal heir, the Court cited with approval its previous rulings in Sarbati Devi v. Usha Devi and Shakti Yezdani v. Jayanand Salgaonkar, holding:
“A mere nomination… does not have the effect of conferring on the nominee any beneficial interest in the amount payable… The legal heirs therefore have not been excluded by virtue of nomination.”
This makes it clear that nominations under the GPF(CS) Rules serve a procedural function, not a testamentary one. Once a nomination becomes invalid, distribution must follow the statutory rules—not the whims of outdated paperwork.
Deceased Nominated Mother in 2000, Married in 2003, Died in 2021 — Wife Fights for GPF
The deceased, an employee of the Defence Accounts Department, had in 2000 nominated his mother (Respondent No.1) for GPF benefits. He married the appellant, Smt. Bolla Malathi, in 2003, and updated his nominations for other terminal benefits like Group Insurance and Gratuity in her favour—but never revised the GPF nomination.
Upon his death in 2021, the employer refused to release the GPF to the wife, citing the existing nomination in favour of the mother. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), however, ruled that the nomination had lapsed upon marriage, and ordered equal distribution between the wife and mother. The High Court overturned this, treating the old nomination as valid.
Supreme Court Restores CAT's Order, Calls High Court's Interpretation Flawed
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had “not interpreted Rule 33 in the proper perspective”, and erred in assuming that a nomination continues to be valid unless formally cancelled.
The Bench was unambiguous:
“The nomination in favour of respondent no.1 would become invalid upon the subscriber acquiring a family… even if the subscriber did not alter the nomination, the earlier one cannot be held valid.”
Rule 33 of the GPF(CS) Rules was pivotal. It mandates:
“…if no such nomination… subsists… the amount… shall become payable to the members of his family in equal shares.”
Supporting this, the Court cited Note 2 to Rule 476 of the CDA (Funds) Manual, which explicitly provides that in cases where the nomination becomes invalid due to marriage, the fund must be distributed equally among all eligible family members.
“Administrative Lapses Cannot Defeat Legal Entitlements”: Court Clarifies Duty Lies With Subscriber, Not Department
The Court acknowledged that the deceased had several years (2003–2021) to update his nomination, but did not. Yet, this failure could not defeat the statutory scheme. The Bench observed:
“It is the duty of the subscriber to make such changes. It is to provide for these very situations where a subscriber neglects or fails… that Rules have been prescribed, laying down how the money is to be distributed amongst survivors.”
Accordingly, the Court emphasized that government departments are not expected to second-guess family changes, and must instead rely on the statute’s default rules in the absence of a valid nomination.
High Court’s Logic Rejected: Apex Court Denounces Partial Succession Analysis
The Bombay High Court had reasoned that since the wife had already received Rs. 60 lakhs under other service benefits, she could not claim a share in the GPF, especially when no civil court had adjudicated on overall succession.
Rejecting this reasoning, the Supreme Court held:
“The Tribunal cannot enter into questions of general succession over all properties, but it can certainly apply Rule 33 when nomination does not subsist. There is no reason to exclude the wife from the GPF amount.”
The Court added that the question of who received other benefits is irrelevant when the statutory rule mandates equal distribution of the GPF among family members in the absence of a valid nomination.
50-50 Division Upheld – Funds Ordered to Be Released
Restoring the CAT’s decision, the Court confirmed that the GPF must be divided equally between the wife and mother. Since the wife had already received her share, the remaining half deposited with the High Court Registrar is to be released to the mother (Respondent No.1), subject to an application:
“The GPF of the deceased shall be distributed between the appellant and respondent no.1… The remainder half… shall be released in favour of Respondent No.1 upon application within two weeks.”
Marriage Voids Previous Nomination — Law Prioritizes Family Over Formality
This judgment reaffirms the automatic invalidity of a GPF nomination when a subscriber acquires a family, and further cements the principle that nomination is not equivalent to inheritance. The Supreme Court’s interpretation aligns with fairness, statutory clarity, and the evolving structure of Indian families.
“The nomination itself would not give respondent no.1 a better claim… than the appellant.”
Date of Decision: 05 December 2025
