SUMATIBEN KESHRISINH DHARLA Vs. TALUKA DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing this petition, the petitioner has prayed for necessary directions against the respondents directing the respondents to grant family pension to the petitioner. The father of the petitioner was serving as Talati-cum-Mantri and he retired from the said post on 8.11.1971. Thereafter, he died on 2.10.1987. Thereafter, the mother of the petitioner was granted the benefit of family pension till her death. It is not in dispute that the mother of the petitioner died on 29.5.1999. After the death of her mother, the petitioner has applied for family pension on the ground that she is physically handicapped and that, therefore, she may be given the benefit of family pension. An application to that effect was made on 12.7.1999. It seems that, along with the application, she has also submitted the certificate of the Civil Surgeon, Bharuch. The said certificate is produced at page 31-Annexure-M. The Civil Surgeon has stated in the said certificate that the petitioner is having permanent partial disability. In spite of that application which was accompanied with the madical certificate of the Civil Surgeon, the petitioner was not given the benefit of family pension by the department in view of the fact that the aforesaid certificate was not complete and it is not stated in the said certificate that the petitioner is physically handicapped to such an extent that she cannot earn regular livelihood. The petitioner subsequently submitted another certificate dated 26.6.2001, copy of which is produced on record today, wherein the Civil Surgeon has given the certificate about the disability of the petitioner. On the basis of the aforesaid certificate, subsequently, the benefit of family pension is already given to the petitioner with effect from 16.10.2001 by order dated 6.12.2001, copy thereof is produced by the petitioner on record today.

(2.) Therefore, so far as the question about family pension is concerned, since the department has already released the said benefit, it is not necessary to give any directions. However, it is submitted by Mr. Sapa, learned advocate for the petitioner, that since the petitioner had already applied for family pension along with the certificate of the Civil Surgeon as back as on 12.7.1999, the benefit of such family pension should have been given from that date and not from 6.10.2001.

(3.) On behalf of the department, affidavit-in-reply has been filed by Mr. V.M. Shah, Deputy Director which is at Page 32 in the compilation. It is stated in reply that, as per the Government Resolution dated 6.10.1999 of the Finance Department, children of the pensioners are not entitled for family pension. However, it is further stated in the reply that in view of necessary clarifications made vide letter dated 22.11.2000 which is issued by the Finance Department, the benefit of family pension can be given to the physically handicapped children of pensioners provided that they should obtain the certificate to the effect. The said clarification of the Finance Department is produced on record at Annexure-C along with the affidavit in reply. As per the said clarification, physically handicapped children of the Government servant will also be entitled to the benefit of family pension from the date of producing the medical certificate about physical disability. In view of the aforesaid circular, the petitioner has already been paid family pension with effect from 6.10.2001 on receiving second certificate from the Civil Surgeon.