Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ms Sanober Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25057
1
WP-21800-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
WRIT PETITION No. 21800 of 2022
MS SANOBER KHAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Akshat Kumar Jain - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Man Singh Jadon- Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on: 11/09/2025
Pronounced on: 08/10/2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order, dated
07.06.2022, (Annexure P/1) whereby her claim for grant of family
pension has been declined by the respondent-District Pension Officer,
Shivpuri.
[2]. The facts necessary for decision of this case are that the
petitioner's father late Shri Israr Ahmed Khan was working as Hostel
Superintendent at P.T.I., Industrial Training Institute, Shivpuri. He
retired from service w.e.f. 31.10.1999 and was availing benefit of
regular pension from the State Government till he expired on
03.12.2019. The petitioner's mother predeceased her father on
21.01.2016.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25057
WP-21800-2022
[3]. The petitioner submitted her claim for family pension before the
respondents. The claim was rejected on the ground that she has crossed
the age of 25 years and as per Rule 47 of M.P. Civil Services (Pension)
Rules, 1976, an unmarried daughter above 25 years of age is not entitled
to family pension. The petitioner, thereafter, made another application
on 13.05.2022 (Annexure P/6) stating therein that she has undergone
three major open heart surgeries for ASD, Valve replacement and
Removal of Aortic Ridges. It was also stated that she has undergone one
spine surgery and a permanent Pacemaker has been implanted for total
heart blockage. It was stated that because of these surgeries, she is in
total heart block condition and is not able to do her daily routine work
and unable to earn her livelihood. The petitioner, therefore, requested
the respondents to extend the benefit of family pension as she is
physically disabled within the meaning of Rule 47(6) of Pension Rules.
This application of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondent-
District Pension Officer vide impugned communication, dated
07.06.2022, (Annexure P/1) again on the ground that since she has
attained the age of 25 years, under the Pension Rules, she is not entitled
to family pension. Challenging this communication, the petitioner has
filed the present writ petition.
[4]. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
respondent no.3 has completely failed to appreciate the provisions of
Rule 47(6) of Pension Rules which provides for payment of family
pension to a son/daughter even beyond 25 years of age in case such a
son/daughter is physically disabled to the extent that he/she is not able
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25057
WP-21800-2022
to earn his/her livelihood. He submitted that the petitioner has
undergone three major open heart surgeries in addition to one spine
surgery. He also submitted that a permanent Pacemaker has been
implanted to the petitioner in order to overcome the total heart blockage
condition. He further submitted that the petitioner had submitted
supporting medical documents alongwith her application, however, the
respondent no.3 completely failed to consider the same and casually
rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner has crossed the
age of 25 years.
[5]. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the
Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India &
others Vs. Baba Singh reported in 2013(1) MP LJ 416. He also referred
to certain provisions of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
The learned counsel also submitted that since the pension rules is a
beneficial piece of legislation, therefore, the provisions thereof cannot
be given narrow interpretation. He, therefore, submitted that the
impugned decision of the respondents is contrary to the provisions of
pension rules and is liable to be set-aside.
[6]. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted
that the petitioner's application has been duly considered by the
respondent-authorities. It is his submission that under Rule 47(6) of
Pension Rules, an unmarried daughter is entitled to family pension till
she attains the age of 25 years. Since, the petitioner has already crossed
the age of 25 years, she is not entitled to family pension. He also
submitted that the petitioner is neither suffering from any disorder nor
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25057
WP-21800-2022
any disability of mind and is not physically crippled or disabled,
therefore, she is not covered under the provisions of Rule 47(6)(iii) of
Pension Rules. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the
respondent no.3 was justified in declining petitioner's request for grant
of family pension.
[7]. Considered the arguments and perused the record.
[8]. The issue of payment of pension to a Govt. servant and his legal
heirs upon his death are governed by provisions of M.P. Civil Services
(Pension) Rules, 1976. The payment of family pension is government by
Rule 47 and for the purposes of decision of this case, the provisions of
sub-rule (6) of Rule 47 are relevant and the same is, therefore,
reproduced hereunder:
"47. Contributory family pension.-
(1) to (5)........
(6) The period for which family pension is payable shall
be as follows:-
(i) in the case of a widow or widower, up to the date
of death or remarriage whichever is earlier;
(ii) in the case of a son, until he attains the age of 21
years; and
(iii) in the case of an unmarried daughter, until she
attains the age of 24 years or until she gets
married, whichever is earlier:
Provided that if the son or unmarried daughter of a
Govt. servant is suffering from any disorder or
disability of mind or is physically crippled or disabled
so as to render him or her unable to earn a living even
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25057
WP-21800-2022
after attaining the age of 25 years the family pension
shall be payable to such son or unmarried daughter
for life subject to the following conditions, namely:-
(a) If such son or unmarried daughter is one
among two or more children of the Govt.
servant, the family pension shall be initially
payable to the minor children in the order set
out in sub-rule (6) of this rule until the last
minor child attains the age of (25 years), as the
case may be, and thereafter the Family
Pension shall be resumed in favour of the son
or unmarried daughter suffering from disorder
or disability of mine or who is physically
crippled or disabled and shall be payable to
him/her for life.
(b) If there are more than one such son or
unmarried daughter suffering from disorder or
disability of mind or who are physically
crippled or disabled, the family pension shall
be paid in the following order, namely :-
(i) Firstly to the son, and if there are more
than one son, the younger of them will
get the family pension only after the
lifetime of the elder;
(ii) Secondly, to the unmarried daughter, and
if there are more than one unmarried
daughters, the younger of them will get
the family pension only after the lifetime
of the elder;
(iii) The family pension shall be paid to such
son or unmarried daughter through the
guardian as if he or she was a minor;
(iv) Before allowing the family pension
for life to any such son or unmarried
daughter, the sanctioning authority
shall satisfy that the handicap is of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25057
WP-21800-2022
such a nature as to prevent him or her
from earning his or her livelihood and
the same shall be evidenced by a
certificate obtained from a medical
officer not below the rank of a Civil
Surgeon setting out, as far as possible,
the exact mental or physical condition
of the child;
(v) The person receiving the family pension
as guardian of such son or unmarried
daughter shall produce [every five years]
[Substituted by Notification No. FB-6-2-
83-R-II-IV, dated 12-4-83 (w.e.f. 19-8-
1983).] a certificate from a medical
officer not below the rank of Civil
Surgeon to the effect that he or she
continues to suffer from disorder or
disability of mind or continues to be
physically crippled or disabled.
[Explanation. - (a) Only that disability which manifests
itself before the retirement or death of the
Government servant while in service shall be taken
into account for the purpose of grant of family
pension under this sub-rule.
(b) A daughter shall become ineligible for family pension
under this sub-rule from the date she gets married.
(c) The family pension payable to such a son or daughter
shall be stopped if he or she starts earning his/her
livelihood.
(d) In such cases it shall be the duty of guardian to
furnish a certificate to the Treasury or Bank, as the case
may be, every month that (i) he or she has not started
earning his/her livelihood; (ii) in case of daughter, that
she has not yet married."
[9]. From perusal of the provisions of Rule 47(6), it is evident that in
normal circumstances, a widow or widower is entitled to get the family
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25057
WP-21800-2022
pension up to the date of death or remarriage, whichever is earlier. In
absence of widow or widower, a son is entitled to get the family pension
until he attains the age of 21 years while an unmarried daughter is
entitled to family pension, until she attains the age of 24 years or she
gets married, whichever is earlier. The petitioner does not fall in either
of the aforesaid clauses of sub-rule (6) of Rule 47 of Pension Rules. The
proviso to sub-rule (6) provides for grant of family pension to a son or
unmarried daughter of a Govt. servant even beyond the age of 25 years,
who is suffering from any disorder or disability of mind or physically
crippled or disability so as to render him or her unable to earn her
livelihood. It is provided that the family pension shall be payable to such
son or unmarried daughter for life subject to certain conditions
enumerated thereafter.
[10]. Explanation (a) then clarifies that only that disability which
manifests before the retirement or death of the Government servant
while in service shall be taken into account for purposes of grant of
family pension under Rule 47(6) of Pension Rules. In the present case,
the petitioner claims suffering ailment for the period prior to her
crossing the age of superannuation. Further, clause (b)(iv) of proviso
provides that before allowing the family pension for life to any such son
or unmarried daughter, the sanctioning authority shall satisfy that the
handicap is of such a nature so as to prevent him or her from earning his
or her livelihood.
[11]. Considering the aforesaid, it is evident that if a son/daughter of
deceased-employee is physically crippled or disabled to the extent that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25057
WP-21800-2022
he/she is unable to earn his/her livelihood, he/she is entitled to get the
family pension even after he/she crossed the age of 25 years. Physical
disability would not always mean the disability which is visible with
naked eyes. There can be a physical disability which is not visible but
disables the incumbent from earning his/her livelihood. The petitioner
has made specific averments in the writ petition as also in the
application for grant of family pension that she is unable to earn her
livelihood because of various heart surgeries underwent by her. The
medical documents were also filed in support of her application.
However, the respondent no.3 has not even considered those documents
and has rejected the application solely on the ground that the petitioner
has crossed the age of 25 years.
[12]. In the case of Baba Singh (supra), the Division Bench was
considering the provisions of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules,
1972. Interpreting the provisions of Rule 54, the Division Bench held as
under;
8. Question is whether the Tribunal is justified in giving
wide and expanded meaning to the provision contained in
Rule 54(6)(iv) of 1972 and whether the certificate issued
by the District Invaliding and Medical Board satisfy the
condition precedent for grant of family pension.
9. Rule 54 of 1972 Rules, relates to provision regarding
Family Pension, brought in vogue since 1-1-1964.
10. Sub-rule (6) provides for the period for which Family
Pension is payable. In case of widow or widower, upto
the date of death or remarriage, whichever is earlier
[54(6)(i)]. In the case of son, until he attains the age of
twenty five years, [54(6)(ii)]. In the case of an unmarried
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25057
WP-21800-2022
daughter, until she attains the age of 25 years or until she
gets married, whichever is earlier [54(6)(iii)].
11. Exception however, has been carved out by way of
proviso, which stipulates that if the son or daughter of a
Government Servant is suffering from any disorder or
disability of mind including mental retarded or is
physically crippled, or disabled so as to render him or her
unable to earn a living even after attaining the age of 25
years the family pension shall be payable to such son or
daughter for life. The proviso has been subjected to
certain conditions.
12. In the present case Clause (iv) is relevant, which
stipulates:
"(iv) before allowing the family pension for life
to any such son or daughter, the Appointing
Authority shall satisfy that the handicap is of
such a nature so as to prevent him or her from
earning his or her livelihood and the same shall
be evidenced by a certificate obtained from a
medical officer not below the rank of a Civil
Surgeon setting out, as far as possible, the exact
mental or physical condition of the child."
13. Rule 54 of 1972 Rules since deals with Family
Pension, it aims to achieve the benefit to the categories of
person mentioned therein. The exception carved out by
virtue of proviso aims at expanding the applicability of
Rule 54. In other words, subject to conditions being
fulfilled, the proviso brings, within the ambit of Family
Pension even the sons and daughters having crossed 25
years of age. The provision being beneficial in nature its
operation cannot be curtailed by construing it narrowly. If
narrowly construed the purpose for which it is introduced
will reduce to futility. (Please See: The Chairman Board
of Mining Examination and Chief Inspector of Mines v.
Ramjee, (1977) 2 SCC 256 : AIR 1977 SC 965 page 968;
Principles of Statutory Interpretation: Justice G.D. Singh:
13th Edn: Chapter I Synopsis 2 page 18). The expression
"the handicap is of such a nature so as to prevent him or
her from earning his or her livelihood", is therefore not to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25057
WP-21800-2022
be construed strictly to mean that since any one can earn
his livelihood and therefore even a handicap person can
also earn his livelihood. But it is to be seen from the
angle of such handicapped person who has been
dependant as his capacity to earn by himself has depleted
because of being handicapped.
14. True it is that, the disability must be such that
substantially limits a major life activity such as carrying
for oneself, working or having sensory functions. In the
case at hand, as apparent from clause (iv) of proviso to
sub-rule (6) of Rule 54 of Rules 1972 it is not sufficient
alone that the handicap is of such a nature so as to
prevent him or her from earning his or her livelihood, it is
imperative that such a nature shall be "evidenced by a
certificate obtained from a medical officer not below the
rank of a Civil Surgeon to the effect that he or she
continues to suffer from disorder or disability of mind or
continues to be physically crippled or disabled."
[13]. Thus, the disability, for purposes of Rule 47(6) of Pension Rules
must be such that substantially limits a major life activity such as
carrying for oneself, working or having sensory functions. In the instant
case also the petitioner claims to be physically disabled due to her heart
ailment because of which she is not in a position to earn her livelihood.
The respondents were, therefore, required to consider her health
condition in order to determine as to whether she is physically disabled
to the extent that she is unable to earn her livelihood or not? The
respondents have failed to discharge this responsibility. Needless to
mention that if it is found that because of her heart ailment, the
petitioner is not in a position to earn her livelihood, she would be
entitled to the benefit of family pension under Rule 47(6)(iii) of Pension
Rules.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:25057
WP-21800-2022
[14]. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order, dated 07.06.2022,
(Annexure P/1) is set-aside. The matter is remitted to the respondent
no.3 or any other Competent Authority to consider the petitioner's claim
for family pension keeping in view her physical disability and take a
decision afresh. Needless to mention that the petitioner may be referred
to the Competent Medical Board for determination of her health
condition for purposes of payment of family pension.
[15]. Let needful be done by the respondents within a period of 90 days
from the date of submission of certified copy of this order.
[16]. The petition is allowed and dispose of with the aforesaid direction.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
Vpn/-
