ARUNABEN PARSHOTTAMBHAI BALDHA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 4. Though served, none appears for respondent no. 5.

(2.) The petitioner - widow of deceased employee Parshottambhai Premjibhai Baldha has approached this court for grant of family pension and other terminal benefits which she is entitled to on the death of her husband who was serving with respondent no. 5 - School as a teacher. Unfortunately, the deceased - husband of the petitioner who was to retire on 24/4/2011 died four days before i.e. on 20/4/2011. The petitioner made an application seeking family pension and other consequential benefits. It is the case of the petitioner that the District Education Officer, Rajkot by a communication dtd. 27/5/2013 had forwarded the papers to the District Treasury Office. It is undisputed that the petitioner was nominated and was being paid provisional pension. Since the case of the petitioner for final pension and family pension was not being finalised, the petitioner raised several grievances before the authorities. The only ground on which the case of the petitioner for family pension and other benefits is not being finalised is that her two daughters have filed a civil suit namely Special Civil Suit No. 9 of 2012 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Dhoraji.

(3.) Mr. Premal Rachh, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the copy of the plaint filed by the two daughters. He would submit that it is clear from the plaint and the prayers thereto that the case of the daughters is that they too are the successors of the deceased and therefore the terminal benefits be paid to them. The petitioner is the defendant no. 6 in the suit. He has submitted that in a reply filed before the Civil Court at Dhoraji, the stand of the District Education Officer is that it is the defendant no. 6 who has been nominated and therefore the daughters- plaintiffs have no entitlement to the pension amounts. He would submit that the daughters are above the age of 25 and are married and therefore they shall not be entitled to the family pension of the deceased.