Bombay High Court

PARVEEN BEGUM GOUS KHANversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The court held that the respondent's order was erroneous and quashed the impugned communication, directing release of the Provident Fund to the petitioner.

Summary

The petitioner, wife and nominee of a deceased assistant teacher, sought release of his Provident Fund amount. She presented an heirship certificate, which the respondent education officer rejected, citing a disclaimer that the certificate was not a succession certificate. The petitioner argued that as the legal heir and nominee, the certificate sufficed for claim. The court found no dispute that she was the legal wife, nominee, and holder of the heirship certificate, and held that the respondent erred in refusing the claim. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, the impugned communication was quashed, and the respondents were directed to release the Provident Fund within four weeks.

Issues considered

Whether an heirship certificate containing a disclaimer that it is not a succession certificate is sufficient for a nominee to claim a deceased employee's Provident Fund.
Whether the respondent authority erred in rejecting the petitioner's claim despite her status as legal heir and nominee.
Whether the impugned communication dated 14 October 2025 should be set aside.

Subjects

Provident Fund
Heirship Certificate
Nominee
Writ Petition
Quash Order
Legal Heir
Succession Certificate Disclaimer

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:42593-DB


                                                {1}                  wp10122-26.doc
                 drp
                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 WRIT PETITION NO.10122 OF 2026

                 Parveen Begum Gous Khan                             PETITIONER

                        VERSUS

                 The State of Maharashtra and Others               RESPONDENTS

                                               .......
                 Mr. G. K. Muneshwar, Advocate for the Petitioner
                 Mr. S. R. Wakle, AGP for Respondent - State
                 Mr. Uttam B. Bondar, Advocate for Respondents No.2 to 5
                                               ....…

                             [CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, &
                                      ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. J.]

                                     DATE : 15th SEPTEMBER, 2026

                 ORDER :

                 1.     This Petition challenges communication dated 14th October,

                 2025 issued by Respondent No.5 – Superintendent of the

                 Education Department, Zilla Parishad, Chhatrapati Sambhaji

                 Nagar, thereby pointing out deficiencies in the proposal of the

                 Petitioner for releasing Provident Fund amount.


                 2.     The Petitioner is wife of Gous Khan s/o Yusuf Khan Pathan,

                 who was serving as Assistant Teacher at Bhavani Basti Kendra,

                 Turkabad, Taluka – Gangapur, District – Chhatrapati Sambhaji

                 Nagar. While in service, he expired on 10 th July, 2024. The

                 Petitioner is the nominee and legal heir of the deceased
                                {2}                    wp10122-26.doc

employee.   She    approached    the   concerned     authorities   for

releasing Provident Fund amount in her favour. The Authorities

directed her to obtain heirship certificate, which the Petitioner

obtained on 5th July, 2025. When the heirship certificate was

presented to the Respondents, Respondent No.5 passed the

impugned order.


3.    Learned Advocate for Respondents No.2 to 5 submits that

taking into consideration the note below the heirship certificate,

which states that, “this is merely a formal declaration of Heirship

and is not a succession certificate. No valuable Debts and

Securities would be transferred in the name of holder on the

basis of this certificate and not use for transfer of movable or

immovable properties on the basis of this certificate by the

Certificate Holder,” the impugned order is issued.


4.    It is not in dispute that the Petitioner is legally wedded wife

and nominee of the Provident Fund Account of the deceased

employee. Heirship certificate is also issued in favour of the

Petitioner. In that view of the matter, Respondent No.5 has

committed an error in passing the impugned order. The

impugned communication, in the facts of the present case,

cannot be sustained. In the result, following order:
                                  {3}              wp10122-26.doc

                              ORDER

A.    Writ Petition is allowed.


B.    Impugned communication dated 14th October, 2025 issued

      by Respondent No.5 is hereby quashed and set aside.


C.     The Respondents are directed to release provident fund

      amount of Gous Khan Yusuf Khan in favour of the

      Petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of

      receipt of copy of this order.



[ ABASAHEB D. SHINDE ]                  [ NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI ]
         JUDGE                                     JUDGE

drp/wp10122-26.doc

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…