Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 15224 MP
Judgement Date : 14 September, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
ON THE 14 th OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 18302 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
HEMA SINGH W/O LATE SHRI RAVINDRA SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE BESIDE
MISHRA ENTERPRISES BHEDAGHAT CHOWK
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI MUNENDRA SINGH - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HOME AND AFFAIRS
VALLABH BHAWAN DISTRICT BHOAPL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. DIVISIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR TREASURY
ACCOUNT AND PENSION BHOPAL
HOSHANGABAD BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE BHOPAL CIRCLE
BHOPAL DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. DIRECTORATE OF POLICE B HOPAL DISTRICT
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. ASSISTANT POLICE INSPECTOR GENERAL
POLICE HEADQUARTERS DISTRICT BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI JUBIN PRASAD - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE STATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Signature Not Verified Signed by: HIMANSHU KOSHTA Signing time: 9/15/2023 2:26:41 PM
Heard.
2. petitioner is widow of Late Shri Ravindra Singh and daughter of Shri D.S. Kushwaha filed this petition seeking direction to the respondents to grant pensionary benefits to the petitioner. On a repeated query from the Bench, learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any enabling provision from Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 which makes the petitioner entitled at the age of 41 years from the benefit of family pension. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Raj Bala vs. State of Haryana and others (Annexure P/1). The said case was decided as per the Pension Rules
application therein and, therefore, cannot be pressed into service. A bare perusal of judgment of Raj Bala (supra) shows that the petitioner therein challenged the constitutionality of sub-rule (ii) of Rule 4 of the Family Pension Scheme, 1964. The said clause has nothing to do with the question involved in the instant case, therefore, the aforesaid judgment is of no assistance to the petitioner. The petitioner counsel despite repeated query could not point out any enabling provision from the Pension Rules which shows that petitioner is entitled to get family pension. Thus, interference is declined.
3. The Writ Petition is dismissed.
(SUJOY PAUL) JUDGE HK
Signature Not Verified Signed by: HIMANSHU KOSHTA Signing time: 9/15/2023 2:26:41 PM
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!