General Provident Fund Nomination Made By Employee In Favour Of Parent Becomes Invalid After Marriage : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that once an employee gets married, the nomination made in favor of a parent would cease to exist, and the General Provident Fund (“GPF”) amount will be equally distributed between the deceased employee's wife and parents.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh set aside the Bombay High Court's decision, while restoring the Central Administrative Tribunal's decision to direct the distribution of the GPF amount to the deceased's wife and mother.

“The nomination in favour of the respondent no.1 (deceased's mother) would become invalid upon him (deceased employee) acquiring a family (marriage or otherwise) …”, the bench said.

The Court reiterated the settled legal position that a nomination does not confer a superior claim over the General Provident Fund, holding that respondent no.1 (the deceased's mother) could not claim priority over the appellant (the deceased's wife). It emphasised that, upon the deceased acquiring a family, the earlier nomination in favour of his mother stood terminated, triggering Rule 33 of the GPF (Central Service) Rules, 1960, which mandates equal distribution of the GPF among eligible family members. Accordingly, the Bench held that 'the GPF of the deceased shall be distributed between the appellant and respondent no.1.

“the nomination itself would not give respondent no.1 a better claim over the total GPF amount than the appellant.”, the court said, citing Sarbati Devi v. Usha Devi, (1984) 1 SCC 424, therefore held that the “the GPF of the deceased shall be distributed between the appellant and respondent no.1.”

Background

It was the case where a Defence Accounts Department employee nominated his mother (Respondent No.1) in 2000 for GPF, Central Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme (CGEGIS), and Death cum Retirement Gratuity (DCRG). After marrying the appellant in 2003, he updated nominations only for CGEGIS and DCRG in favour of his wife, but not for GPF. Following his death in 2021, the wife received all other service benefits but was denied GPF, as authorities relied on the old nomination favouring the mother.

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) held that the GPF nomination automatically became invalid upon the deceased employee's marriage and directed equal distribution of the fund between the wife and the mother. The High Court reversed this decision, holding that the nomination continued unless the employee formally cancelled it, which prompted the Appellant-wife to move to the Supreme Court.

It was in this backdrop, the Supreme Court gave the aforementioned ruling, guaranteeing equal rights to the wife and parents in the GPF amount upon marriage of the employee.

The appeal was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: SMT. BOLLA MALATHI VERSUS B. SUGUNA AND ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1177

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Venkita Subramoniam T.R, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Uday B. Dube, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kaustubh Dube, Adv. Mr. A. Selvin Raja, AOR Mr. Brijender Chahar Ld, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Jagdish Chandra, Adv. Mr. Bhakti Vardhan Singh, Adv. Ms. Gayatri Mishra, Adv.