Gujarat High Court
Jigesh Harikrushna Patel vs The Asstt. P. F. Commissioner on 9 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/220/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 220 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
JIGESH HARIKRUSHNA PATEL
Versus
THE ASSTT. P. F. COMMISSIONER
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SUNIL K SHAH(803) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS SUSHMA S SHAH(806) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS PJ DAVAWALA(240) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 09/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, thereby challenging the action of the respondent - Authority for not granting the benefit of nominee pension and asking the petitioner to submit the request to confirm the signature of the deceased member in Form No.2 as well as also asking the petitioner to produce the divorce decree issued by the competent Court of law in support of the deceased member being a divorcee.
Page 1 of 12 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 21:32:02 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/220/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined
2. It is the case of the present petitioner that the petitioner's uncle (Mama), namely, Pravinbhai Mangalbhai Patel, was born on 18.10.1960 and expired on 02.11.2018. The uncle was in the service with M/s. Mafatlal Industires, Mill Road, Nadiad at Kheda on 01.11.1990, he gave his resignation on 31.10.2017 after serving for more than 27 years. Pravinbhai Mangalbhai Patel's father expired on 05.06.1990 and his mother expired on 07.05.2017. The uncle had married with one Shilpaben and thereafter, the uncle had taken a divorce from his wife on 04.03.1992. The uncle was not having any daughter or son born out of the wedlock. Therefore, the petitioner, being a sister's son, was the only heir of the uncle, namely, Pravinbhai Mangalbhai Patel. During the lifetime of the uncle, a nomination and declaration form was filed on 08.12.1998, nominating the present petitioner as a nominee to receive the pension after the death of the uncle.
2.1 On the death of the uncle, the petitioner gave an application for monthly pension in Form No.10-D, claiming the amount of pension as well as has also filed an affidavit on non- judicial stamp paper of Rs.20/- on 03.12.2018. The petitioner had Page 2 of 12 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 21:32:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/220/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined also produced a copy of the communication addressed by the employer recommending to grant the benefit of pension to the petitioner, being a sole heir of the deceased. However, instead of granting the family pension, the Authority has called for a divorce decree from the present petitioner. In the absence of the same, the family pension was not granted to the present petitioner, which is the subject matter of the challenge before this Court.
3. Head learned advocate Mr. Sunil K. Shah for the petitioner and learned advocate Ms. P. J. Davawala for the respondent.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Shah submits that during the lifetime of the deceased employee, the declaration and nomination form was filled up, nominating the present petitioner as an heir. However, after the death of the deceased, the petitioner was asked to produce the divorce decree given by the Court of law. Learned advocate Mr. Shah submits that as it was a customary divorce, therefore, the petitioner was unable to produce the divorce decree and in absence of the same, the family pension was not ground. Learned advocate Mr. Shah has relied on the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Rekhaben Kamleshbhai Nanavati V/s. Employees' Provident Fund Page 3 of 12 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 21:32:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/220/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined Organization Anr. reported in 2016 (4) GLR 2768 and submitted that when the member employee has no spouse or children can nominate anybody to receive the pension after his death and so long as such nomination exists only the nominee remains entitled to receive the pension. Learned advocate Mr. Shah submits that the beneficial provisions for payment of pension is required to be interpreted liberally. However, instead of granting the benefit of pension, the Authority has denied for the same in view of above a technical objection.
4.1 In view of the above submissions, learned advocate Mr. Shah has prayed to allow this petition by directing the respondent - Authority to start making payment of family pension to the present petitioner, who is the sister's son of the deceased, namely, Pravinbhai Mangalbhai Patel.
5. Per contra, learned advocate Ms. Davawala has submitted that as per the office record, the deceased was having the PF Code No.GJ/363/14139 and had served for 27 years. His PF A/C was closed on 06.02.2018 for Rs.3,10,425/- and the same amount was credited in the member's account. Thereafter, the member had applied for the member pension on 05.02.2018, which came Page 4 of 12 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 21:32:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/220/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined to be rejected on 08.02.2018 with the comment to provide the divorce certificate issued by the Court. Thereafter, Form No.10-D was again received on 15.03.2018, which came to be rejected on 20.03.2018 with the comment to submit it after completion of 58 years along with a copy of the pass-book. Learned advocate Ms. Davawala submits that the petitioner does not fall under the definition of "family" provided in the EP Scheme, 1995 and therefore, family pension cannot be granted to the present petitioner. It is submitted by the learned advocate Ms. Davawala that except the family pension, other benefits like Provident Fund and gratuity have been granted in favour of the present petitioner. However, in absence of fulfilling the criteria mentioned in the definition, the petitioner would not be entitled to the claim and therefore, the Authority has rightly not granted to the present petitioner the said benefit and present petition, being devoid of merit, is required to be dismissed.
6. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties, it emerges from the record that the petitioner was having the PF Code No.GJ/363/14139 and the following details were filled up in the said form. Page 5 of 12 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 21:32:02 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/220/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined "Father's Name : Mangalbhai DOB - 18.10.1960 Date of Joining 01.11.1990 Date of Leaving 31.10.2017 Reason for Exit - Cessation (Short Service)"
6.1 During the lifetime of the member, the nomination form was filled up, however, the same was rejected by the Authority on the ground that a divorce certificate is required to be produced. The Form No.10-D was also rejected on the ground that on completion of 58 years, the said form has to be filled up and to send along with the copy of the pass-book. On the death of the member, the petitioner, who is the sister's son, had applied for the family pension, which came to be rejected by the Authority on the ground that the petitioner does not fall under the definition of "family" provided under the EP Scheme, 1995, which is reproduced hereinbelow.
"(vii) " Family " means -
(i) wife in the case of male member of the Employees' Pension Fund;
(ii) husband in the case of a female member of the Employees' Pension Fund;
and(iii) sons and daughters of a member of the Employees' Pension Fund;
Explanation- The expression " sons " and " daughters " shall Page 6 of 12 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 21:32:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/220/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined include children legally adopted by the member." 6.2 This Court has referred the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Poonamal v. Union of India, reported in (1985) 3 SCC 345, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held para Nos.7 to 9 as under;
"7. It is not necessary to examine the concept of pension. As already held by this Court in numerous judgments pension is a right not a bounty or gratuitous payment. The payment of pension does not depend upon the discretion of the Government but is governed by the relevant rules and anyone entitled to the pension under the rules can claim it as a matter of right. (Deoki Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar [(1971) 2 SCC 330 : 1971 Supp SCR 634] , State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh [(1976) 2 SCC 1 : 1976 SCC (L&S) 172 : (1976) 3 SCR 360] and D.S. Nakara v. Union of India [(1983) 1 SCC 305 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 145 : (1983) 2 SCR 165 : 1983 UPSC 263] .) Where the Government servant rendered service, to compensate which a family pension scheme is devised, the widow and the dependent minors would equally be entitled to family pension as a matter of right. In fact we look upon pension not merely as a statutory right but as the fulfilment of a constitutional promise inasmuch as it partakes the character of public assistance in cases of unemployment, old-age, disablement or similar other cases of undeserved want. Relevant rules merely make effective the constitutional mandate. That is how pension has been looked upon in D.S. Nakara judgment [(1983) 1 SCC 305 :
1983 SCC (L&S) 145 : (1983) 2 SCR 165 : 1983 UPSC 263] . At the hearing of this group of matters we pointed out that since the family pension scheme has become non- contributory effective from September 22, 1977 any attempt at denying its benefit to widows and dependents Page 7 of 12 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 21:32:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/220/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined of Government servants who had not taken advantage of the 1964 liberalisation scheme by making or agreeing to make necessary contribution would be denial of equality to persons similarly situated and hence violative of Article
14. If widows and dependents of deceased Government servants since after September 22, 1977 would be entitled to benefits of family pension scheme without the obligation of making contribution, those widows who were denied the benefits on the ground that the Government servants having not agreed to make the contribution, could not be differently treated because that would be introducing an invidious classification among those who would be entitled to similar treatment.
When this glaring dissimilar treatment emerged in the course of hearing in the Court, Mr B. Dutta learned counsel appearing for the Union of India requested for a short adjournment to take further instructions.
8. On the next hearing Mr B. Dutta made a statement on behalf of Union of India, the relevant portion of which may be extracted:
"Government have examined the matter. As the Family Pension Scheme, 1964 was made non-contributory from September 22, 1977, Government would agree to extend the benefit of the Family Pension Scheme, 1964 to all the living widows. Payment to such widows may be made from September 22, 1977 or the date of death of the pensioner, whichever is later, till the date of the death of the widow. The benefit will also be available in cases where the death of the pensioner occurs hereafter. Administrative procedures are being evolved to facilitate identification of widows of Government pensioners and to lay down the guidelines for the determination of family pensions. The benefit of family pension mentioned above will not apply to the widows of deceased Government servants who would not have been covered by the scheme even if the scheme had been given retrospective effect."
While examining the statement it transpired that certain clarifications were necessary. "Common Cause" a society Page 8 of 12 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 21:32:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/220/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined which is a petitioner in one petition pointed out certain aspects of the statement which needed clarification. The Court directed the "Common Cause" society to send a letter to the Ministry of Finance indicating the points on which clarifications were required by them. The issues raised by the Society may be summed up as under:
(i) whether the orders will apply to the widow/minor son/unmarried daughter as defined in the relevant provisions of family pension scheme;
(ii) whether the scales of pension as prescribed with effect from January 1, 1973 will be made uniformly applicable to all the eligible persons in the family pension scheme; and
(iii) whether the benefits of family pension scheme will be made available to all pensioners irrespective of the fact whether they had or had not contributed two months' emoluments in terms of the original family pension scheme, which contribution was subsequently deleted with effect from September 22, 1977.
9. Today when the matter was taken up for final hearing another statement was submitted by Mr B. Dutta on behalf of the Union of India. The Government of India submitted its clarifications on the aforementioned three points which read as under:
(i) Government are prepared to grant to the dependents i.e. minor sons, etc. of the pensioners governed under pre-
1964 scheme the same pensionary benefits as are admissible to the dependents under the current pension rules.
(ii) It is clarified that Government are agreeable to apply the increased pension rates introduced from January 1, 1973 to all the eligible persons, including dependents. This will, however, be subject to the condition that the total amount admissible (excluding dearness relief) under the liberalised provision now being agreed to, will not be more than what is admissible to a person covered under the current rules.
(iii) Government have already agreed to the grant of Page 9 of 12 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 21:32:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/220/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined arrears of family pension with effect from September 22, 1977 -- the date on which contribution of two months' emoluments by pensioners was dispensed with. Persons who are now to be granted the benefits of family pension will not be required to contribute two months' emoluments. Similarly, no demand for refund of contribution already made by pensioners will be entertained."
6.3 This Court has also referred the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kirpal Singh, reported in (2014) 5 SCC 189, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held para No.15 as under;
"15. Reference may also be made to K.V. Muthu v. Angamuthu Ammal [(1997) 2 SCC 53] where this Court made the following apposite observations: (Paul Enterprises case [(2009) 3 SCC 709] , SCC p. 718, para 28) "28. ... '10. Apparently, it appears that the definition is conclusive as the word 'means' has been used to specify the members, namely, spouse, son, daughter, grandchild or dependent parent, who would constitute the family. Section 2 of the Act in which various terms have been defined, opens with the words 'in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires' which indicates that the definitions, as for example, that of 'family', which are indicated to be conclusive may not be treated to be conclusive if it was otherwise required by the context. This implies that a definition, like any other word in a statute, has to be read in the light of the context and scheme of the Act as also the object for which the Act was made by Page 10 of 12 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 21:32:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/220/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined the legislature.
11. While interpreting a definition, it has to be borne in mind that the interpretation placed on it should not only be not repugnant to the context, it should also be such as would aid the achievement of the purpose which is sought to be served by the Act. A construction which would defeat or was likely to defeat the purpose of the Act has to be ignored and not accepted.
12. Where the definition or expression, as in the instant case, is preceded by the words 'unless the context otherwise requires', the said definition set out in the section is to be applied and given effect to but this rule, which is the normal rule may be departed from if there be something in the context to show that the definition could not be applied.' (K.V. Muthu case [(1997) 2 SCC 53] , SCC pp. 57-58, paras 10-12)"
6.4 Considering the above law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is of the considered view that no error has been committed by the learned Court, rejecting the application for family pension filed by the petitioner, who is the sister's son of the deceased employee.
6.5 Reliance on the judgment, which was placed by the learned advocate Mr. Shah, wherein it is held that any person would be entitled to pension, who has been nominated in absence of Page 11 of 12 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 21:32:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/220/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined spouse or children. The said decision was challenged before the Division Bench of this Court by filing an Intra-Court Appeal, being LPA No.699 of 2016. However, during the pendency of the appeal, the sole respondent was died, therefore, Court has disposed of the LPA, keeping the question of law remain opened. In that background, reliance cannot be placed on the decision rendered by the Coordinate bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No.5970 of 2015.
6.6 Considering the overall circumstances, this Court is of the view that, although the petitioner has received gratuity as well as other benefits, he does not fall under the definition of 'family' as defined under Section 2(d) of the Act. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner cannot be considered a dependent of the deceased and is not entitled to claim a family pension. As this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
7. Resultantly, present petition is dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) Vikramsinh Amarsinh Page 12 of 12 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 21:32:02 IST 2025