STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.versusCHHANGUR PRASAD SETH
- Citation
- 1996 INSC 185
- Decided
- 5 February 1996
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
The State cannot be compelled to make a second payment of the GPF benefits; the High Court's direction to do so is illegal.
Summary
Shyama Devi, a teacher employed by the State of Bihar, died on 17 August 1988 and had nominated certain persons to receive her General Provident Fund (GPF) benefits. The nominated claimants were paid the GPF amount. The deceased's brother's son, Chhangur Prasad Seth, later produced a succession certificate and claimed the same amount, prompting a writ petition. The Patna High Court directed the State to make payment to him, despite the earlier disbursement. The Supreme Court held that the State had already discharged its liability under the nomination and could not be compelled to pay the same benefit again; any inter‑se dispute must be resolved in the appropriate forum, not by a second payment. Consequently, the High Court order was set aside and the appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the State of Bihar is liable to pay the General Provident Fund benefits again on the basis of a succession certificate after having paid them to the nominated beneficiaries.
- Whether a High Court direction ordering a second payment is legally permissible.
Subjects
Judgment
STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. A
v.
CHHANGUR PRASAD SETH
FEBRUARY 5, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] B
Service Law :
General Provident Fund-Death of Teacher--Claim by nominees--
Paid by State-Subsequently deceased's brother's son also making claim- C
Produced Succession certificate-High Court directing payment to him-Held:
State had discharged liability in temis of nomination by the deceased-Can-
not be compelled to pay twice over on succession certificate being
produced-Claim to be adjudicated only on the regular constituted f 01um in
accordance with law.
D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3364 of
1996. •
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.11.93 of the Patna High
Court in C.W.J.C. No. 13107 of 1992.
E
H.L. Aggarwal, B.B. Singh, for the Appellants.
AK. Pandey for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
F
Leave granted.
We have heard the counsel for the parties. This appeal by special
leave arises from the order of the Division Bench of the High Court of
Patna made on November 11, 1993 in CWJC No. 13107/92. Admittedly one G
Shyama Devi was a teacher who died on August 17, 1988. She nominated
certain persons to be entitled to received the G.P.F. etc. on her behalf. It
would appear that three persons laid the claim which was accordingly made
over. When the respondent claimed to be son of a brother of the deceased,
he was asked for the succession certificate. By the time he produced the
certificate, the amount had already been paid to the claimants. Therefore, H
139
\
-~
140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 2 S.C.R.
A the respondent filed a writ petition. The Division Bench of the High Court
allowed the writ petition and directed to make the payment to him. Thus
this appeal by special leave.
In view of the fact that the State had discharged the liability In terms
of the nomination by the deceased teacher, the inter se claim,-if any, have
B to be adjudicated only on the regular constituted forum and the State
cannot be compelled to pay twice over on the succession certificate
produced by the respondent. Under these circumstances, the direction
issued by the High Court is clearly illegal.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the High court is
C set aside. If any other claim is to be discharged, the same may be done in _..
accordance with law. This order does not preclude the respondent to take
action according to law.
G.N. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.