Rule 319 explained: this guide covers what it means, who it applies to, the step-by-step process, documents required, fees, due dates and penalties in India — so you can stay compliant with confidence and avoid costly mistakes.
Rule 319 of the Income-tax Rules, 2026 lets a gratuity nomination be made in Form 184 or a form as near thereto, requires it to favour family where the employee has one, and defines family to include the employee himself and the dependent parents of both spouses.
Making the nomination
Sub-rule (1) of rule 319: an employee may be allowed by the trustees of the gratuity fund to make a nomination in Form 184, or in a form as near thereto as may be necessary, conferring on one or more persons the right to receive the gratuity in the event of his death — either before that amount becomes payable, or where it has become payable but has not been paid. The 1962 parallel is rule 101A.
Rule 293(1) requires a provident fund nomination to be made in Form No. 184, full stop. Rule 319(1) permits Form 184 or a form as near thereto as may be necessary, and repeats the same latitude for a modification in sub-rule (5). The reason is practical: many employers already run a gratuity nomination under the Payment of Gratuity Act on its own prescribed form, and the rule accommodates that rather than forcing a second, near-identical document. A nomination taken on the labour-law form is therefore not automatically bad for rule 319 — but it must be as near thereto as may be necessary, so the substantive particulars still have to be there.
Note the second limb of sub-rule (1). The nomination operates not only where the employee dies before the gratuity becomes payable, but also where it has become payable and has not been paid — so a nomination governs a gratuity already crystallised but unpaid at death.
Sub-rule (2): where more than one person is nominated, the employee shall specify the amount or share payable to each in such manner as to cover the whole of the amount of gratuity that may be payable on his death. A nomination that leaves part unallocated does not satisfy the sub-rule.
The family requirement
| Sub-rule | Position at nomination | Effect |
|---|---|---|
| (3) | Employee has a family | The nomination shall be in favour of one or more persons belonging to his family; a nomination favouring a non-family member is invalid |
| (4) | Employee has no family | The nomination may favour any person — but if he subsequently acquires a family, it is forthwith deemed to be invalid, and he may be allowed to make a fresh nomination in favour of family members |
Sub-rule (4) of rule 319 is emphatic in a way its provident fund counterpart is not: acquiring a family makes the earlier nomination forthwith deemed to be invalid. The employee is not required to do anything, and nobody tells him. The fund is then holding a document that has ceased to have effect, and unless a fresh nomination is made the gratuity falls to be dealt with as if none existed. Trustees should therefore trigger a nomination review on marriage or the birth of a child, not on a fixed cycle — and should note that sub-rule (4) says the employee may be allowed to make a fresh nomination, so the trustees' permission is part of the process.
The family definition — wider than the provident fund one
Sub-rule (8): "family" in relation to an employee is deemed to consist of:
| Employee | Family |
|---|---|
| Male | Himself, his wife, his children whether married or unmarried, his dependent parents, the dependent parents of his wife, and the widow and children of his predeceased son |
| Female | Herself, her husband, her children whether married or unmarried, her dependent parents, the dependent parents of her husband, and the widow and children of her predeceased son |
Set rule 319(8) against rule 293(8) and two departures stand out.
First, this definition includes the employee himself or herself. That looks odd in a nomination for payment on death, and its practical effect is on the guardian provision in sub-rule (7), which asks for a "major person of his family".
Second, and more consequentially, it is symmetrical on in-laws: a male employee's family includes the dependent parents of his wife, and a female employee's includes her husband's. Under rule 293(8) only the female member's family includes her spouse's dependent parents. So a male employee may validly nominate his wife's dependent parents under his gratuity fund but not under his provident fund. Where both nominations are taken on the same day, on the same form, that difference is easily missed.
Modification, minors and effect
- Sub-rule (5) — a nomination may be modified at any time after written notice to the trustees in Form 184 or a form as near thereto; and if the nominee predeceases the employee, the nominee's interest reverts to the employee, who may make a fresh nomination for it.
- Sub-rule (7) — where the nomination is wholly or partly in favour of a minor, the member may appoint a major person of his family as guardian of the minor nominee in the event of the member predeceasing the nominee; and where there is no major person in the family, he may at his discretion appoint any other person.
- Sub-rule (6) — a nomination or its modification takes effect to the extent it is valid on the date it is received by the trustees.
Sub-rule (6) fixes both the date and the extent. A nomination valid as to some nominees and not others operates so far as it is valid, rather than failing as a whole.
Worked example
| Facts | Position under rule 319 |
|---|---|
| Nomination taken on the employer's gratuity-law form | Acceptable if as near to Form 184 as may be necessary |
| Married employee nominates his brother | Invalid — he has a family |
| Male employee nominates his wife's dependent father | Valid under rule 319(8) |
| The same man makes that nomination under the provident fund | Invalid there — rule 293(8) is narrower |
| Unmarried employee nominates a friend | Valid at the time under sub-rule (4) |
| He marries the following year | The nomination is forthwith deemed invalid |
| Employee nominates his married daughter | Valid — children count married or unmarried |
| Employee nominates his predeceased son's widow | Valid — expressly within the definition |
| Shares nominated add to 80% only | Sub-rule (2) requires the whole gratuity to be covered |
| Nominee dies before the employee | That interest reverts to the employee |
| Minor nominated; no major person in the family | The employee may appoint any other person as guardian |
| Gratuity had become payable but was unpaid at death | The nomination still governs it |
Compliance checklist
- Take the nomination in Form 184 or a form as near thereto, carrying all the same particulars.
- Ensure the shares cover the whole gratuity.
- Test whether the employee has a family at the date of nomination.
- Re-test on marriage or the acquisition of a family — the earlier nomination is forthwith invalid.
- Use the rule 319 family definition, not the provident fund one, for a gratuity nomination.
- Record a guardian wherever a minor is nominated, preferring a major family member.
- Note that the trustees' permission is part of both the original nomination and a fresh one.
- Date every nomination on receipt by the trustees, since that fixes its effect.
Common mistakes
- Applying the provident fund family definition to a gratuity nomination.
- Rejecting a male employee's nomination of his wife's dependent parents.
- Leaving a pre-marriage nomination in place.
- Nominating shares that do not exhaust the gratuity.
- Omitting a guardian for a minor nominee.
- Assuming a nomination fails entirely when it is only partly invalid.
Which year this governs
The Income-tax Rules, 2026 are made under the Income-tax Act, 2025. The 1962 parallel to rule 319 is rule 101A, given for tracing only. Verify the current text and form before taking nominations.