CASE NAME: Smt. Bolla Malathi v. B. Suguna & Ors.
CASE NUMBER: Civil Appeal No. 14604 of 2025
COURT: Supreme Court of India
DATE: 5 December 2025
QUORUM: Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
FACTS
This appeal dealt with determining who was entitled to the General Provident Fund (GPF) amount accumulated by the deceased, Bolla Mohan, an employee of the Defence Accounts Department. When he joined the service in 2000, he nominated his mother (Respondent No.1) for the GPF, CGEGIS (Central Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme), DCRG (Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity). After marrying the appellant in 2003, he revised his nomination only for the CGEGIS and DCRG in favour of his wife, but not the GPF.
Following his death on 4 July 2021, the appellant received all other service related benefits amounting to around Rs. 60 lakhs. As the mother was still the nominee, the wife got rejected for any services. She took the matter to the Central administrative tribunal, which held that the nomination is overturned once the deceased acquired a family and that the GPF must be divided equally between the mother and the wife.
ISSUES
- Whether the GPF nomination made in favour of the mother ceased to be valid after the subscriber acquired a family.
- Whether the High Court’s reading of Rules 5 and 33 of the General Provident Fund (Central Service) Rules, 1960, was legally accurate.
- Whether, in the absence of a valid nomination at the time of death, the GPF amount should be shared equally among the eligible family members.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
1. Rule 33, GPF(CS) Rules, 1960 – If a valid nomination in favour of a family member exists, the GPF is paid to the nominee. If no valid nomination subsists, the entire amount must be distributed equally among all eligible family members.
2. Note 2 to Rule 476, Official Manual (Part V) – Where a nomination becomes invalid—such as when the subscriber acquires a family—the GPF is to be shared equally among eligible family members, based on a verified list.
ARGUMENTS
APPELLANT
The appellant submitted that the nomination form expressly stated that it would lapse once the subscriber “acquired a family”. Relying on the language of the GPF (CS) Rules, particularly Rule 33 and Note 2 of Rule 476 of the Official Manual, she argued that once the nomination becomes invalid, the GPF must be divided equally among the eligible family members. She noticed that the deceased failure to alter the nomination should not defeat the statutory norms.
RESPONDENT
Respondent No. 1 the mother, argued that the deceased had deliberately updated the nominations for CGEGIS and DCRG in favour of his wife but intentionally left the GPF nomination unchanged. This, she claimed, indicated his clear intention to her as the GPF beneficiary. She endorsed the High Court’s conclusion that, in the absence of a written cancellation or a fresh nomination , the original nomination continued to hold good.
ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court examined the relevant rules governing GPF nominations. It noted that while the Rules do not mandate automatic cancellation, they expressly provide that nomination becomes invalid when a subscriber acquires a family. The nominations form itself contained such a condition. Therefore, even though the deceased failed to inform the Accounts Officer for any alteration after the marriage, the original nomination automatically became invalid as the terms of the form already provided such a clause. The Court observed that the High Court had misunderstood Rules 5(5) and and 5(6) by assuming that a nomination must be cancelled for it to become invalid. Instead, these rules outline the steps to be taken after a nomination is declared invalid. Since, there was no valid nomination at the time of death, the law requires the GPF amount to be equally distributed among the family members.
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Bombay High Court’s decision, and restored the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. It directed that the GPF amount be divided equally between the appellant and Respondent No.1 and the appellant has already been paid her half and the balance must be given to the Respondent.
CONCLUSION
The Court made it clear that nominees do not gain any beneficial ownership of the fund and that statutory rules on succession or distribution apply whenever there is no valid nomination. By restoring the CAT’s decision, the Supreme Court highlighted that simply failing to update a nomination cannot be used to override statutory provisions made to ensure fair share between the family members.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY: ARCHITHA MANIKANTAN
