Jayprakash Jajme vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24362
1 WP-70-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
st
ON THE 31 OF AUGUST, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 70 of 2024
JAYPRAKASH JAJME
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Yash Pal Rathore - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Dharmendra Chelawat - Advocate for the respondent No.7.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:-
"a- To quash the order annexure-P/1 so far it relates to calling of
petitioner to get succession certificate,
b- To direct respondents to release the service benefits of Late
Narendra Kumar Patel to the petitioner on the basis of nomination
c- Pass any other appropriate order as may be deemed fit just &
expedient in the interest of justice."
The facts as projected by the petitioner are that late Narendra Kumar
Patel was working as Principal, Government Girls Higher Secondary School,
Manawar, District Dhar and expired on 27.06.2023 while in service.
According to the petitioner, during his service tenure the deceased had
nominated the petitioner for receiving his service benefits after his death. On
the basis of such nomination, the petitioner submitted his claim before the
concerned authorities. The Block Education Officer, Manawar, after
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 03-09-2026
10:47:32

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24362
2 WP-70-2024
verification, submitted a report recommending the petitioner’s claim and

stating that the deceased had executed nomination in his favour. However,
instead of releasing the service benefits, the authorities required the
petitioner to obtain a succession certificate. The relevant pleadings and
documents in this regard are contained in the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s name is
duly recorded as nominee in the service record of the deceased employee and
the same was also verified by the Block Education Officer. It is submitted
that once the deceased employee had nominated the petitioner in the
prescribed record, the authorities could not have withheld the service benefits
merely by directing the petitioner to obtain a succession certificate. Learned
counsel submits that the nomination was made during the lifetime of the
deceased employee and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to receive the
service benefits in accordance with the applicable provisions of the M.P.
Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. It is further submitted that the
respondents themselves had initially verified the nomination and
recommended release of the benefits in favour of the petitioner. Reliance has
also been placed upon the order dated 13.05.2019 passed by this Court in
W.P. No.3072/2017, wherein, according to the petitioner, service benefits
were directed to be released in favour of the person whose name was
recorded as nominee.
Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.7 submits that there is a
serious dispute regarding the nomination relied upon by the petitioner. It is
submitted that respondent No.7 is the younger sister of the deceased and the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 03-09-2026
10:47:32

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24362
3 WP-70-2024
deceased and his wife had been living separately and had obtained a decree

of mutual divorce. According to respondent No.7, the deceased was residing
with her and they had also jointly purchased property. It is further submitted
that the petitioner is claiming himself to be the adopted son of the deceased,
but no legally executed adoption deed or other competent declaration
establishing such status has been placed on record.
Learned counsel for respondent No.7 further submits that the petitioner
has relied upon an earlier nomination, whereas the last and final IFMS ESS
Profile Nominee Form, stated to have been signed by the deceased himself,
records the name of respondent No.7 as nominee. It is submitted that the said
form bears a login/print date of 30.06.2023 and, according to the answering
respondent, the online system permits only one final nomination to remain
operative at a time. It is therefore contended that the earlier nomination relied
upon by the petitioner stood superseded by the subsequent nomination in
favour of respondent No.7. Respondent No.7 has also alleged that the
petitioner suppressed the aforesaid IFMS ESS Profile from this Court and has
questioned the genuineness of the earlier nomination and the claim of the
petitioner.
Learned counsel for respondent No.7 further submits that the dispute
raised by the parties involves questions of fact regarding the validity and
effect of the competing claims, the status of the petitioner as an alleged
adopted son and the genuineness and sequence of the nominations. It is
therefore submitted that such disputed questions cannot appropriately be
adjudicated in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Thus, the present petition
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 03-09-2026
10:47:32

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24362
4 WP-70-2024
deserves to be dismissed.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
It is apparent that there is a dispute between the petitioner and
respondent No.7 with regard to their entitlement to the post-death/service
benefits of late Narendra Kumar Patel. The petitioner relies upon a
nomination in his favour and the verification/report submitted by the Block
Education Officer, whereas respondent No.7 relies upon the subsequent
IFMS ESS Profile Nominee Form and claims that she is the last recorded
nominee of the deceased employee.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the limited question which
requires consideration at this stage is as to whom the department can safely
release the service/post-death benefits in the absence of a competent
adjudication regarding competing succession claims. Where the service
record of a deceased employee contains the name of a person as nominee, the
department, for the purpose of disbursing the retiral or post-death service
benefits, is required to act upon the nomination as available in its duly
maintained record, subject to the applicable service rules. The department
cannot be expected, in the course of administrative processing of the death
claim, to adjudicate complicated questions of succession, legitimacy,
adoption, inheritance or the competing validity of rival documents.
In the present case, the material placed before this Court shows that
respondent No.7 relies upon the last IFMS ESS Profile Nominee Form and
claims that her name stands recorded as the nominee of the deceased. The
said document has been produced before this Court along with the reply of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 03-09-2026
10:47:32

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24362
5 WP-70-2024
respondent No.7. The controversy as to whether the earlier nomination relied

upon by the petitioner was valid, whether it was subsequently superseded,
and what legal effect is to be given to the competing documents are
essentially matters which cannot be conclusively determined in the present
writ proceedings on the basis of disputed documents and rival assertions.
Consequently, this Court is of the view that, for the purpose of
administrative disbursement of the post-death/service benefits, the person
whose name is recorded as the nominee in the operative service record of the
deceased employee would be entitled to receive the benefit from the
department. Such release, however, shall be subject to the final rights of the
legal heirs or any other person claiming a superior entitlement thereto.
If any other person claims entitlement to the said benefits contrary to
the nomination presently recorded in the service record, he/she shall be at
liberty to approach the competent civil Court and seek appropriate
declaration regarding succession and entitlement. In the event such claimant
obtains a succession certificate establishing his/her entitlement, the
concerned authority shall consider the consequential claim in accordance
with law.
In view of the aforesaid, no further adjudication of the rival claims is
warranted in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The respondents shall process and
release the post-death/service benefits of late Narendra Kumar Patel in
favour of the person whose name is recorded as the operative nominee in the
relevant service/official record, in accordance with the applicable rules and
after completing the requisite formalities. Such release shall not prejudice the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 03-09-2026
10:47:32

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24362
6 WP-70-2024
right of any other claimant to establish his/her independent or superior right

before the competent civil Court.
With the aforesaid liberty and direction, the writ petition stands
disposed of.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 03-09-2026
10:47:32