RAJESHWARI SONI Vs. M.P. ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed correctness, legality and validity of order dated 10-2-2000 (Annexure P-7) in so far as it directs payments of 50% of the amount of family pension to respondent No. 5. The petitioners have prayed for direction to pay family pension to the petitioner @ Rs. 9,028/- per month. The petitioners have also prayed for direction to settle the claim of the petitioner for provident fund as well as death-cum-retirement gratuity. The petitioners have also prayed for direction for grant of compassionate appointment to petitioner No. 1. During the course of arguments, however, learned counsel for the petitioners confined his submissions only in so far a challenge to order dated 10-2-2000 (Annexure P-7) and claim for compassionate appointment are concerned.

(2.) Brief factual matrix, relevant for determination of controversy involved in the petition, are that B.L. Soni, husband of petitioner No. 1, died on 1-2-1991 while in service. It is the case of the petitioner No. 1 that her husband Late B.L. Soni performed first marriage with one Usha Devi and there was no issue out of this wedlock. Usha Devi died in the year 1987 and, thereafter, Late B.L. Soni married petitioner. Out of this wedlock, two sons, petitioners No. 2 & 3 were born. Respondent No. 5 is the nephew (brother' son) of Late B.L. Soni. According to the petitioners, respondent No. 5 is not dependent, but is earning. Even though the petitioner claimed payment of family pension to her, she being the widow of deceased Govt. employee, she was informed vide communication dated 13-10-1995 (Annexure P-5) that family pension is to be apportioned between the petitioner and respondent No. 5. This was objected to by the petitioner vide representation (Annexure P-6) which was ignored and impugned order was passed on 10-2-2000, by which 50% of the amount of family pension alone has been sanctioned for the petitioner upto 1-2-2006 with further stipulation of payment of amount of Rs. 2,709/- per month as family pension. 50% amount of pension has been granted to respondent No. 5 for the period from 2-2-1999 to 6-9-1999 i.e. upto to the age of 25 years.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioner No. 1, being the widow, alone is entitled to full family pension and pension amount could not be apportioned between the petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 5 as long as petitioner No. 1 is alive. Alternative submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that even if it is assumed that till attaining the age of 25 years i.e. upto 6-9-1999, such apportionment was permissible under the relevant rules, after respondent No. 5 became ineligible to get pension upon completion of 25 years of age, the whole amount of family pension was to be paid to the petitioner after 6-9-1999. It is argued that distribution of family pension amount to more than one eligible persons, under the scheme of the rules, is merely a facility to more than one persons to get benefit of family pension. But, when other persons are rendered ineligible for any reason to get their share of family pension amount, the entire amount of family pension is liable to be paid to one who is eligible and getting a part of pension.