Bombay High Court
Smt. Shobha Prakash Pillay vs Union Of India , Through Secretary And ... on 2 August, 2024
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2024:BHC-AS:31103-DB
4775.18-wp+
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.4775 OF 2018
Smt. Shobha Prakash Pillay ..... Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ..... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.12159 OF 2017
Smt. Anjali Vijay Deosthali ..... Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ..... Respondents
Mr. J. M. Tanpure with Mr. Atul P. Vanarase for the petitioners.
Mr. R. P. Ojha a/w. Mr. Rakesh Dubey for the respondents in both
the writ petitions.
CORAM: DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. &
AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATE : AUGUST 2, 2024
ORAL ORDER (PER : CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. Heard learned counsel representing the respective parties.
2. Since these two petitions challenge the common judgment
and order, dated 11th April 2017 passed by the Mumbai Bench of
the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the
Tribunal), whereby Original Application No.673 of 2013 filed by
the petitioner of Writ Petition No.12159 of 2017 and Original
Basavraj Page|1
4775.18-wp+
Application No.34 of 2014 filed by the petitioner of Writ Petition
No.4775 of 2018 were dismissed, both these petitions have been
taken up together and are being decided by means of the common
judgment, which follows:
3. Claim in these petitions as put-forth by the petitioners is in
respect of grant of family pension. Certain facts need to be noted
before delving into the respective submissions made by the
learned Counsel for the parties.
Writ Petition No.15159 of 2017:
4. Father of the petitioner in this petition, Late Prabhakar
Narayan Mahajani was employed with Sainya Inginiyari College,
College of Military Engineering, Pune and retired from service on
attaining the age of superannuation on 20th December 1972. After
his retirement, he started getting pension, however, on 10th June
1983 he died as a result of which his widow and mother of the
petitioner, Smt. Kamal Prabhakar Mahajani started getting
pension on 10th June 1983. She also died on 29th April 2001. The
petitioner, before the death of her mother got married to one Vijay
Anant Deosthali who was working with Bajaj Auto Ltd. and had
taken voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31st August 2001. On voluntary
Basavraj Page|2
4775.18-wp+
retirement from Bajaj Auto Ltd., husband of the petitioner was
paid pension. On his death on 2nd February 2007, the petitioner
started getting family pension in place of her husband from Bajaj
Auto Ltd.
5. After death of her husband, the petitioner claimed family
pension from College of Military Engineering, Pune on the alleged
ground that she is a widowed daughter of Late Prabhakar Narayan
Mahajani and since her husband has died on 2nd February 2007 as
such being a widowed daughter, she is entitled to family pension.
It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that since family pension to
the petitioner was denied, she instituted the proceedings of
Original Application No.673 of 2013 which has been dismissed by
the impugned judgment, dated 11th April 2017.
Writ Petition No.4775 of 2018:
6. The petitioner of this writ petition, Smt. Shobha Prakash
Pillay is claiming family pension on the ground that she is also a
widowed daughter of the pensioner. Father of the petitioner
Tatyarao Laxman Kadam expired on 22nd December 1970 while
working as LDC in the office of the Commandant, Central AFV
Depot, Kirkee, Pune. On his death, the petitioner's mother
Basavraj Page|3
4775.18-wp+
Smt.Chandrabai Tatyarao Kadam started getting family pension
which she received till her death on 22nd April 1971. After the
death of the petitioner's mother, her brother and son of Tatyarao
Laxman Kadam one Gulab started getting pension from 23rd April
1971 which he received till he expired on 6th April 1974. It is
further the case as set-up by the petitioner that she was receiving
family pension till she married with one Prakash Laxman Pillay on
28th July 1974 and after her marriage she herself informed the
Department concerned in writing about her marriage which took
place on 28th July 1974 and thereafter her family pension was
stopped.
7. The petitioner's husband, Prakash Laxman Pillay died on 16th
November 2000. After the death of the parents and the husband
of the petitioner an application was moved by the petitioner
claiming family pension. It is said that the petitioner submitted
her application on 3rd September 2010 and stated that she is the
widowed daughter of the employee and is earning a meagre
amount per month and that being a widowed daughter she is
entitled to the family pension after the death of her husband which
took place on 16th November 2000.
Basavraj Page|4
4775.18-wp+
8. It has been argued by learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioners in both the writ petitions that in terms of the provisions
contained in Rule 54 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules
1972, the petitioners being widowed daughters of the employee
concerned, are entitled to family pension and denial thereof is
completely illegal, however, the Tribunal, while considering the
Original Applications filed by the petitioners, has illegally rejected
their claim.
9. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the
respondents in both the writ petitions has submitted that though
a widowed daughter is eligible for grant of family pension,
however, her eligibility is to be seen on the date of death of the
family member who was getting the pension prior to his/her death
as clarified in the Office Memorandum, dated 11th September
2011. It is further argued by learned Counsel for the respondents
that if a widowed daughter is not dependent at the time of death
of the Government servant or the person getting the family
pension, she is not entitled to receive family pension. It has, thus,
been submitted further on behalf of the respondents that so far
as the petitioner in writ petition No.12159 of 2017 is concerned,
at the time of death of the Government employee i.e., her father
Basavraj Page|5
4775.18-wp+
she was not eligible for the family pension for the reason that her
mother was alive and accordingly her mother was granted family
pension. However, at the time of death of her mother she was
already married and was, thus, dependent on her husband.
Accordingly, it has been argued that on the death of her husband,
this petitioner cannot claim family pension for the simple reason
that at the time of death of her mother she was not entitled to
family pension.
10. In respect of the writ petitioner in Writ Petition No.4775 of
2018, it has been argued on behalf of the respondents that before
her marriage the petitioner was granted the benefit of family
pension, however, since she married on 28th July 1974, as such
her pension was rightly stopped and now, she cannot claim the
benefit of family pension on the death of her husband. On the
strength of the aforesaid submissions, learned Counsel
representing the respondents has argued that there is no illegality
in the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal.
11. Having considered the respective submissions made by the
learned Counsel for the parties, we are not convinced with the
claim put-forth by the petitioners in both these writ petitions. Rule
Basavraj Page|6
4775.18-wp+
54 of the Rules 1972 clearly provides that "an unmarried son
or an unmarried or widowed or divorced (daughter except
a disabled son or daughter shall) become ineligible for
family pension under this sub-rule from the date he or she
gets married or remarried."
12. Paragraph 4 of the Office Memorandum, dated 11th
September 2013 is also relevant to appropriately appreciate the
issue involved in these petitions, which is quoted hereunder:
"4. It is clarified that the family pension is payable to the children as
they are considered to be dependent on the Government
servant/pensioner or his/her spouse. A child who is not earning equal
to or more than the sum of minimum family pension and dearness relief
thereon is considered to be dependent on his/her parents. Therefore,
only those children who are dependent and meet other conditions of
eligibility for family pension at the time of death of the Government
servant or his/her spouse, whichever is later, are eligible for family
pension. If two or more children are eligible for family pension at that
time, family pension will be payable to each child on his/her turn
provided he/she is still eligible for family pension when the turn comes.
Similarly, family pension to a widowed/divorced daughter is payable
provided she fulfills all eligibility conditions at the time of
death/ineligibility of her parents and on the date her turn to receive
family pension comes."
13. A perusal of paragraph 4 of the Office Memorandum, dated
11th September 2013 clearly reveals that "family pension to a
widowed/divorced daughter is payable provided she
fulfills all eligibility conditions at the time of
death/ineligibility of her parents and on the date her turn
to receive family pension comes."
Basavraj Page|7
4775.18-wp+
14. Thus, though there cannot be any dispute that unmarried or
widowed daughter is eligible for family pension, however, such
unmarried or widowed daughter becomes ineligible for family
pension from the date such daughter gets married or remarried,
as the case may be.
15. Further, paragraph 4 of the Office Memorandum, dated 11th
September 2013 clearly stipulates that family pension to a
widowed daughter is payable only in case she fulfills all the
eligibility conditions at the time of death/ineligibility of her
parents.
16. If the case put-forth by the petitioners in these petitions is
analyzed on the basis of the afore-quoted provisions of Rules 1972
and Office Memorandum, dated 11th September 2013, what we
find is that both the petitioners are not entitled to family pension.
In this regard, we may note that the petitioner in Writ Petition
No.12159 of 2017 was married in the year 1981 whereas her
mother, who started receiving family pension on death of her
father, died subsequent to the marriage of the petitioner i.e. on
29th April 2001. Accordingly, on the date of death of her mother,
she was already married and hence was dependent on her
Basavraj Page|8
4775.18-wp+
husband and not on her mother. It is also to be noticed that the
petitioner's husband died on 2nd February 2007 and before his
death he was employed with Bajaj Auto Ltd. from where he was
voluntarily retired w.e.f. 31st August 2001 and on voluntary
retirement he was being paid pension from Bajaj Auto Ltd. and
after his death on 2nd February 2007 the petitioner received family
pension from Bajaj Auto Ltd.
17. Accordingly, the petitioner of Writ Petition No.12159 of 2017
is not entitled to any family pension.
18. Similarly, as far as the petitioner of Writ Petition No.4775 of
2018 is concerned, her father died on 22nd December 1970 and
on his death her mother started getting pension which she
received till her death on 22nd April 1971. After the death of her
mother, her brother Gulab started getting pension from 23rd April
1971 and was paid pension till his death i.e. 6th April 1974. Even
the petitioner was granted family pension on the death of her
brother, however, she received the family pension till 28th July
1974 when she got married. Only because her husband expired
on 16th November 2000 will not, in our opinion, revive the right of
the petitioner to get family pension for the reason that in terms
Basavraj Page|9
4775.18-wp+
of Rule 54 of the Rules 1972, the unmarried daughter becomes
ineligible for family pension from the date she gets married. The
petitioner, thus, became ineligible for family pension w.e.f. 28th
July 1974 i.e. with effect from the date she married.
19. The Tribunal has taken into consideration all the relevant
aspects of the matter and has rightly not found claim of the
petitioners of these two writ petitions for family pension to be
sustainable.
20. We do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment of
the Tribunal.
21. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed.
22. However, there will be no order as to costs.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)
Digitally
signed by
PRAVIN
PRAVIN DASHARATH
DASHARATH PANDIT
PANDIT Date:
2024.08.06
14:09:23
+0530
Basavraj Page|10
