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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
