The Supreme Court ruled that a GPF nomination in favour of a mother becomes invalid once the employee acquires a family through marriage. The Court ordered that the GPF amount be shared equally between the widow and the mother.
The Supreme Court has recently given an important ruling on who is entitled to receive the General Provident Fund (GPF) amount of a deceased government employee.
The Court has allowed the appeal filed by the widow of the employee and decided that a nomination alone cannot give the mother a stronger right over the entire GPF amount when the employee has a legally wedded wife.
ALSO READ: Woman’s Gotra Changes When She Marries: Supreme Court On Widow’s Property Rights
The top court said that the GPF money must be shared between the wife and the mother.
The case was a dispute between the wife and the mother of the deceased employee, who worked in the Defence Accounts Department under the Government of India.
A Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh made the position very clear and said,
“The position stated by us above is no longer under any manner of doubt. Granted that the nomination was in favour of respondent no.1, however, the condition stipulated in the nomination form rendered such nomination, at the time of death, void. In other words, the nomination itself would not give respondent no.1 a better claim over the total GPF amount than the appellant.”
The widow was represented by Advocate Hari Vishnu, while the mother was represented by AOR A. Selvin Raja.
According to the facts of the case, the deceased had joined government service in 2000. At that time, as per the rules, he nominated his mother (respondent) to receive the GPF, the Central Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme (CGEIS), and the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG).
Later, he got married to the appellant in 2003 and updated the nomination only for CGEIS and DCRG in favour of his wife.
However, he did not update the nomination for GPF. When the employee passed away while still in service, the wife received all other employment-related benefits amounting to ₹60 lakh.
In 2021, when she applied for release of the GPF amount, the authorities refused, saying that the mother was still the nominee on record.
The wife then approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which held that although the mother’s nomination was valid at the beginning, it automatically became invalid after the employee got married because the rules said so.
As the deceased did not file a fresh nomination after marriage, the CAT said that the GPF amount must be shared equally between all eligible family members. It ordered that both the wife and mother should get a 50% share.
ALSO READ: Mere Allegation of Adultery Cannot Deny Wife Family Pension : Bombay High Court
The High Court, however, later overturned the CAT’s decision and held that the entire GPF amount should be paid only to the nominee — the mother — and that the wife could claim her share separately if she wished.
The Supreme Court examined Rule 476(5) of the Official Manual (Part V) and observed that the rules clearly say that if a nomination becomes invalid, the amount must be divided among all eligible family members.
The Court also noted that between the deceased’s marriage in 2003 and his death in 2021, he had several opportunities to change or update the nomination, but he never did so.
The Bench found that the GPF nomination form clearly stated that once the subscriber acquires a family — through marriage or otherwise — the earlier nomination becomes invalid. The Court said this happened automatically in 2003.
The Bench explained that it is the subscriber’s responsibility to update nominations and that the authorities are not required to remind them.
It said that the rules exist specifically for situations where the subscriber forgets or fails to change the nomination. The Bench repeated that the rule strictly says that after a person acquires a family, the earlier nomination becomes invalid.
It said,
“He did not alter the nomination to comply therewith. It is also true that respondent nos. 2 to 4 are not obligated to ask such a subscriber to alter or cancel the nominations and it is the duty of the subscriber to do so. It is to provide for these very situations where a subscriber neglects to or fails to make such changes, that Rules have been prescribed, laying down how the money is to be distributed amongst survivors” and further added that “That being the case, even in view of the fact that the deceased had not made changes to the nomination for GPF, the earlier nomination cannot be held to be valid”.
Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court order and restored the CAT’s decision. The Bench also recorded that the wife had already received her 50% share as per the CAT order. The remaining money was lying with the Registrar of the High Court.
The Court said,
“It is a matter of record that the appellant has already received her share of GPF amount, as ordered by CAT. The remainder half of the money in question which currently stands deposited before the Registrar, High Court (Appellate side) shall be released in favour of Respondent No.1 herein”.
The case is titled Smt. Bolla Malathi v. B. Suguna (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1391).
The appellant was represented by Advocates Hari Vishnu, Likhi Chand, and AOR Venkita Subramoniam T.R., while the respondent was represented by AOR A. Selvin Raja, ASG Brijender Chahar, AOR Mukesh Kumar Maroria, and Advocates Jagdish Chandra, Bhakti Vardhan Singh, and Gayatri Mishra.
Cause Title:
Smt. Bolla Malathi v. B. Suguna
(Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1391)
Read Judgement:
Click Here to Read More On Lalu Yadav
