Gujarat High Court
Pooja Hariram (Ramlot) Kori vs The Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation on 4 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20818/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20818 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
POOJA HARIRAM (RAMLOT) KORI
Versus
THE AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARDIK C RAWAL(719) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR NIRBHAY H RAWAL(10695) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MRS MH RAWAL(2851) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR HAMESH C NAIDU(5335) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 04/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate for the respondent waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent. With the consent of the parties, the matter is considered at length and disposed of accordingly.
2. The present petition is filed by the petitioner for seeking the following reliefs:
"(A) be pleased to allow this petition.Page 1 of 19 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:43:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20818/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined (B) be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction by quashing and setting aside the impugned communication/order dated 6-12-2018 at Annexure A and/or further be pleased to direct the respondent to pay the amount of family pension to the petitioner with effect from 20-4-2018 till 4-1-2020 with penal interest at a rate of 15% for the delayed payment of unpaid amount by declaring that the petitioner is entitled to the family pension as per the Gujarat Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 2002.
(C) pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to direct the respondent to deposit/pay the amount of family pension every month to the petitioner till 4-1-2020.
(D) be pleased to pass such other and further orders may be deemed just and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of the justice."
3. Brief facts as stated in the memo of the petition are as under:
3.1 It is the case of the petitioner in this petition that the father of the petitioner-Shri Hariram Ramlot was serving as a labourer with the respondent corporation Page 2 of 19 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:43:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20818/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined from 13.06.1995 and retired on 31.08.2013. As per the rules, he was getting pension every month. The father of the petitioner expired on 12.04.2016 and, therefore, the mother of the petitioner was getting family pension.
Unfortunately, even the mother of the petitioner expired on 19.04.2018. Since the petitioner's three elder brothers and two elder sisters have already crossed the age of 25 years on the date of death of the mother of the petitioner, the petitioner was entitled to the family pension till she attains the age of 25 years. Therefore, the brother of the petitioner preferred an application bearing dated 18.08.2018 with a request to sanction and pay the amount of family pension to the petitioner with effect from 20.04.2018 with interest. The aforesaid application was also accompanied by the requisite documentary proof along with the affidavits. It is further the say of the petitioner in this petition that unfortunately by the impugned order/communication dated 06.12.2018, the application was rejected on ground that the name of the petitioner was not mentioned in the list of legal heirs by the father of the petitioner at the time of retirement. It is pertinent to note that the father of the petitioner was a labourer and originally belonged to Page 3 of 19 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:43:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20818/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined Uttar Pradesh. Till the retirement the father of the petitioner was staying in Ahmedabad with the brothers of the petitioners whereas the petitioner was staying in her native place and therefore the name of the petitioner was not reflected in the ration card of her father. Even at the time of retirement, the father of the petitioner had mentioned the name of three brothers only in the stipulated form as advised because he was an illiterate labourer. It is further the say of the petitioner in this petition that within a period of 5 years, the father of the petitioner as well as mother of the petitioner expired and out of his six children, only the youngest one (the petitioner) will be eligible for family pension. The petitioner seeks to refer and rely upon Chapter 10 of the Gujarat Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 2002 to substantiate the petitioner's claim for the family pension. It is further the say of the petitioner in this petition that the petitioner thereafter preferred a detailed representation dated 20.03.2019 but the same is not responded by the respondent corporation. It is further the say of the petitioner in this petition that the rules permit the payment of family pension to either son or the daughter of the deceased employee in case of death Page 4 of 19 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:43:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20818/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined of both the parents to the child who has not completed 25 years on the death of husband or wife who was getting family pension. It is further the say of the petitioner in this petition that out of three sisters, two elder sisters are already married whereas the petitioner is unmarried and will complete 25 years on 04.01.2020 and thus the petitioner is entitled to the family pension from 20.04.2018 to 04.01.2020 along with penal interest on delayed payment. Hence, the present petition has been preferred.
4. Heard Mr. Hardik Raval, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Hamesh Naidu, learned advocate for the respondent.
5.1 Mr. Hardik Raval, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the youngest daughter of the labourer Shri Hariram Ramlot serving with respondent Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation from 13.06.1995 till his retirement on 31.08.2013. The father of the petitioner was getting pension every month in his account. On 12.04.2016, the petitioner's father expired and, therefore, the mother (widow) of the petitioner was Page 5 of 19 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:43:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20818/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined getting family pension. Unfortunately, the petitioner's mother expired on 19.04.2018. Since, the petitioner's three elder brothers and two elder sisters had already crossed the age of 25 years on the date of death of their mother, they were not eligible for family pension. The petitioner being the unmarried daughter not having crossed the age of 25 years on the date of death of her mother, the petitioner was entitled to family pension till she turned 25 years of age, i.e., from 20.04.2018 to 04.01.2020. He has further submitted that an application dated 18.08.2018 was preferred on behalf of the petitioner daughter for sanction of family pension with interest from 20.04.2018. However, by the impugned order / communication dated 06.12.2018, the petitioner's application was rejected on the flimsy ground that the petitioner daughter was not listed as a legal heir/nominee at the time of retirement. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing and setting aside of impugned order/communication dated 06.12.2018.
5.2 He has further submitted that the petitioner has admittedly attained the age of 25 years on 03.01.2020 Page 6 of 19 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:43:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20818/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined and, therefore, pension as per Rule 91(3) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Pension Rules" can be extended till 02.01.2020. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of G.L. Bhatia Vs. Union of India reported in 1999 (0) AIJEL-SC 9042 equivalent citation is 1999 (5) SCC 237, more particularly, paragraph 2 of that judgment is relevant. He has also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the cases of (i) Wallington Moses Macwan Vs. Municipal School Board reported in 2013 (0) AIJEL-HC 229417, more particularly, paragraphs 9 and 10 of that judgment are relevant, (ii) Smitaben Hiralalbhai Parmar Vs. General Manager (Finance) reported in 2021 (0) AIJEL-HC 242917, more particularly, paragraph 7.4 of that judgment is relevant and has submitted that appropriate order may be passed by considering the prayers made in the present petition in view of the aforesaid submissions.
6. Per contra, Mr. Hamesh Naidu, learned advocate for the respondent-corporation has strongly objected the submissions made at the bar by learned advocate for the Page 7 of 19 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:43:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20818/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined petitioner and has submitted that when the name of the petitioner is not shown in the nominee and even the petitioner cannot be considered as heir of the deceased employee, such benefit cannot be granted. He has further submitted that even otherwise the petitioner has already crossed age of 25 years and, therefore, no purpose will be served to consider the case of the petitioner. He has further submitted that the decision taken by the respondent authority which is impugned in the present proceeding is based on the relevant provisions of the Pension Rules and other provisions of law and, therefore, there is no interference required to be called for by this court.
7.1 I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar by the respective parties. I have also considered the materials available on the record. It transpires that prima facie, there is substance in the say of the petitioner. It is fruitful to refer the Rule 91(3) of the Gujarat Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 2002, which reads thus:
"Rule - 91. Family Pension to whom payable:
(1) The period for which family pension is payable Page 8 of 19 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:43:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20818/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined shall be as follows:-
(i) In the case of a widow or widower, until the date of death or remarriage, whichever is earlier;
(ii) in the case of son, until he attains the age of twenty-five years or until he gets married, whichever is earlier; and
(iii) in the case of an unmarried daughter, until she attains the age of twenty-five years or until she gets married, whichever is earlier;
(2) (i) where the Family Pension is payable to more than one widows then, the Family Pension shall be paid to the widows in equal shares;
(ii) on the death of a widow, her share of the Family Pension shall become payable to her eligible child. In case of such child becoming ineligible to get the share of Family Pension, the same shall be payable to the surviving widow/ widow or/and their children in equal shares.
Provided that if the widow is not survived by any child her share of the Family Pension shall be payable to other widows in equal shares. If there is one such widow full amount of family pension shall be payable to her. (3) Where the deceased Government employee or pensioner is survived by a widow but has left behind Page 9 of 19 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:43:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20818/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined eligible child or children from another wife who is not alive, the eligible child or children shall be entitled to the share of Family Pension which the mother would have received if she had been alive at the time of the death of the Government employee or pensioner. (4) Where a deceased Government employee or pensioner leaves behind more than one child, the eldest eligible child shall be entitled to the family pension for the period mentioned in clause (ii) or clause (iii) of sub-rule (1), as the case may be and after the expiry of that period the next child shall become eligible for the grant of Family Pension.
(5) Where a deceased Government employee or pensioner leaves behind him/her no eligible child, the family pension shall be paid to his/her parents. The income criterion and certain other eligibility conditions for the grant of family pension to the dependent parents of the deceased Government employee shall be as under:-
(i) Parents who were wholly dependent on the deceased Government servant when he/she was alive will only be entitled to family pension.
(ii) The deceased employee had left behind him/her neither widow/widower or a child at the time of his/her death.
(iii) The family pension wherever admissible to parents, Page 10 of 19 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:43:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20818/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined the mother will receive the pension first and after her death the father will receive the family pension.
(iv) The income criteria will be that their earning is not more than Rs. 2550 per month.
(v) They will have to produce an annual certificate to the effect that their earning is not more than Rs. 2550 per month.
(vi) It will be the responsibility of the pension sanctioning authorities concerned to satisfy themselves, based on a scrutiny of the service records and other relevant documents, that the parents were, in fact, wholly dependent on the deceased Government servant when he/she was alive and that he/she has not left behind any of the other specified beneficiaries who have a prior claim to the family pension.
(vii) The parents will get Family Pension at the rate of 30% of the basic pay of the deceased employee, subject to a minimum of Rs. 1275 per month.
(6) In case both wife and husband are Government employees and are governed by the provisions of this rule and one of them dies while in service or after retirement, the family pension in respect of the deceased shall become payable to the surviving husband or wife and in the event of death of the husband or wife, the surviving child or children shall be granted two family pensions in respect of Page 11 of 19 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:43:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20818/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined the deceased parents.
(7) Except as provided in sub-rule (2), the Family Pension shall not be payable to more than one member of the family at the same time;
(8) If deceased Government employee or pensioner leaves behind a widow or widower, the Family Pension shall become payable to the widow or widower, failing which to the eligible child;
(9) If sons and unmarried daughters are alive, unmarried daughters shall not be eligible for Family Pension unless the youngest son attains the age of twenty five years and thereby becomes ineligible for the grant of Family Pension."
7.2 I have considered the fact that father of the petitioner has expired on 12.04.2016 and the mother of the petitioner has also expired on 19.04.2018 and, therefore, the petitioner being unmarried daughter not having crossed the age of 25 years on the date of death of her mother, hence, the petitioner is entitled to get the family pension for the period 20.04.2018 to 04.01.2020. 7.3 I have also considered the considered the judgments cited at the bar by learned advocate for the petitioner. Page 12 of 19 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:43:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20818/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined
(i) In the case of G.L. Bhatia (supra), more particularly, paragraph 2 of that judgment is relevant, which reads as under:
"2. The sole question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant, who happens to be the husband of the deceased Government servant, is entitled to family pension under the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules (for short "the rules") notwithstanding the fact that the deceased wife in her nomination did not include the husband. The forums below have taken the view agreeing with the authorities that since the nomination was not in favour of the husband and the husband was staying separate from the wife, the husband would not be entitled to family pension in question. This view cannot be sustained in view of the provisions contained in Rule 54 of the rules. It is too well settled that where rights of the parties are governed by statutory provisions, the individual nomination contrary to the statute will not operate."
(ii) In the case of Wallington Moses Macwan (supra), more particularly, paragraphs 9 and 10 of that judgment is relevant, which reads as under:
"9. The aforesaid shows that either of the spouse, wife or husband as the case may be, would be included in the Page 13 of 19 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:43:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20818/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined family and such would also include separated wife or husband, even by judicial separation. If we consider the date of marriage, the same is on 04.11.1975, whereas the date of retirement is 31.12.2006. Therefore, prior to even appointment on 02.09.1982, their marriage had taken place. The son of the petitioner and the deceased employee, respondent No.4 herein, is born out of their wedlock and he has not stated that there was any divorce between the petitioner and his mother, or that the matrimonial relationship as lawful husband and wife had come to an end prior to retirement. Under these circumstances, once the status as that of husband of the deceased was proved, the appellant-petitioner would be entitled to family pension. At this stage, we may refer to the decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of Abedakhatun Malek (supra), wherein at para 8 and 9 it was observed thus:
8. The learned counsel has also put reliance on various citations, which are as under:-
(1) Jodh Singh Vs. Union of India and Another (1980) 4 SCC 306, in which, it has been held that, benefit of special family pension admissible under Regulation 74 of the Pension Regulations for Indian Air Force admissible to wife of the officer only in the event of the death of the officer and such benefit would be the exclusive property of his widow and the officer is not entitled to make testamentary disposition of the same during his lifetime .
(2) Rampyari Bai V.s Municipal Corporation and Page 14 of 19 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:43:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20818/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined Another 1987 (Supp) SCC 263, wherein it was found that, 'there was no valid marriage and therefore, there could be no valid nomination in favour of the petitioner by the deceased for payment of family pension' and so the Hon'ble Apex Court had not interfered with. By citing the said decision, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that whether the marriage was valid one and it was subsistence at the time of death of the pensioner, is the main criteria to be considered while deciding the question of family pension and there appears force in it.
(3) Smt. Violet Issaac and others Vs. Union of India and others (1991) 1 SCC 725, wherein it has been held that:
The Family Pension Scheme under the Rules is designed to provide relief to the widow and children by way of compensation for the untimely death of the deceased employee. The Rules do not provide for any nomination with regard to family pension, instead the Rules designate the persons who are entitled to receive the family pension. Thus, no other person except those designated under the Rules are entitled to receive family pension. The Family Pension Scheme confers monetary benefit on the wife and children of the deceased Railway employee, but the employee has no title to it. The employee has no control over the family pension as he is not required to make any contribution to it. The family pension Page 15 of 19 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:43:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20818/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined scheme is in the nature of a welfare scheme framed by the Railway administration to provide relief to the widow and minor children of the deceased employee... (4) G.L. Bhatia Vs. Union of India and Another, (1999) 5 SCC 237. Relevant paragraphs 3,4 and 5 reproduced hereunder:
3. Under Rule 54 sub-rule (14)(b)(i) the expression family has been defined thus:
54. (14)(b)(i) Wife in the case of a male government servant, or husband in the case of a female government servant...
4. Sub-rule (8)(ii) of Rule 54 states that:
54.(8)(ii) If a deceased government servant or pensioner leaves behind a widow or widower, the family pension shall become payable to the widow or widower, failing which to the eligible child.
5. In the light of the aforesaid provisions and there being no divorce between the husband and wife even though they might be staying separately, the appellant husband would be entitled to the family pension in terms of the rules as noted aforesaid and the authorities, therefore, committed error in not granting family pension to the appellant relying upon the nomination made by the deceased wife of the appellant. The impugned order is, accordingly, set aside and this appeal stands allowed.
9. We have considered the above referred legal position and we are agreeable to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and in our view, the same are squarely applicable to the Page 16 of 19 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:43:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20818/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined present case on hand. It appears that during the lifetime of deceased pensioner Mr. Yashinmiya U. Malek, his marriage was subsisted and till he expired, no divorce has taken place between the deceased pensioner and the appellant. It is important to note that family pension is provided by statutory provisions and notifications and circulars issued by the competent authority from time to time and the concerned officials are supposed to follow the same. In the computation for the claim of family pension, it would not be open to decide the issue of desertion and to attribute the cause of desertion because the issue of desertion is never a criteria for granting and denying the family pension. For grant of family pension, the only consideration would be that the claimant ought to be legally wedded wife or husband of the pensioner and he/she be alive on the date of death of the pensioner. Even if the pensioner has nominated third person excluding his wife, then also, the right of the legitimate wife/ widow to claim family pension cannot be brushed aside.
10. We find that the same principle and the same legal position would apply in the present case. Merely because name was not mentioned in the nomination form is not a justifiable ground to deny family pension unless the factum of marriage or relationship of husband and wife was at doubt. Whether the name is mentioned in the ration card or other record would have little importance when the marriage is proved, the same is certified and registered and Page 17 of 19 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:43:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20818/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined son is born out of the wedlock and he has declared accordingly. There is no other evidence brought to our notice that the claim of the original petitioner as husband of the deceased, or that the claim of respondent No.4 as being son of the original petitioner and the deceased is bogus or otherwise. Hence, we find that the contentions raised on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 for denying pension do not deserve to be accepted."
(iii) In the case of Smitaben Hiralalbhai Parmar (supra), more particularly, paragraph 7.4 of that judgment is relevant, which reads as under:
"7.4. We noticed that what has been objected to by the other side is that at the time of filling-up the nomination form, the petitioner is not being shown as a dependent. Such nomination form has not come on the record. At the same time, there is no date which is being referred to as to on which date such nomination form is being filled-in. It is ordinarily to be filled-in at the time when the service record is initiated. At a later stage, a person can make changes and make nomination also and even if there is a complete absence of nomination, that would not take away the right of the dependent to get the family pension. As submitted by learned advocate Mr. Mehta fairly that she is not in any manner ineligible for being a divorced daughter and for want of any objection on the part of any other heirs, it is only because her name is missing in the nomination form filled-in by the father that she is being Page 18 of 19 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:43:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/20818/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined denied the pension. In our opinion, such could hardly be the criteria which should weigh with the respondent for denying eligible dependent the amount of pension under the Pension Rules."
7.4 Considering the above mentioned position of law and considering the fact that the case of the petitioner is required to be considered for the particular till the petitioner has completed 25 years of age i.e. for the period 20.04.2018 to 04.01.2020 and, therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed by granting prayers prayed in the present petition by quashing and setting aside the communication dated 06.12.2018.
8. In view of the above discussion, the present petition is allowed in terms of paragraph 9(B) of the present petition. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) DIWAKAR SHUKLA Page 19 of 19 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Aug 07 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 07 21:43:18 IST 2025