NAYAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Vidya Patmase was employed as a Supervisor at Primary Health Centre, Kali (Dau), Tahsil Pusad, District Yavatmal. It is alleged that she was murdered by her husband - Khushal on 9-9-1998. The present petitioner is minor son of Smt. Vidya Patmase and this writ petition has been filed by him through his legal guardian grandmother. It is prayed by the petitioner that clause (13)(a) of Rule 116 of Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (for short, Pension Rules of 1982) be declared ultra vires and that the respondents be directed to release the family pension to the petitioner. It appears from the averments made in the writ petition that Shri Khushal, the father of the petitioner was tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. for committing the murder of Smt. Vidya and that he has been awarded life sentence. An appeal, challenging the conviction has been filed by Shri Khushal, which is said to be pending before this Court.

(2.) Clause (13) of Rule 116 of the Pension Rules of 1982, reads thus:

(3.) Looking to the entire scheme of Family Pension, as provided in Rule 116 of the Pension Rules of 1982, it appears that the Family Pension is only payable to one member of the family at a time and that it is not payable to more than one member of the family at the same time. It further transpires that, if a deceased Government servant or pensioner leaves behind a widow or widower, the Family Pension becomes payable to the widow or widower, failing which to the eligible child. In the light of this scheme of Family Pension, what is provided in clause (13)(a) of Rule 116 is that if a person who is eligible to receive Family Pension is charged with the offence of murdering the Government servant of whose Family Pension is claimed or for abetting in the commission of such an offence, claimed by such person to receive the Family Pension, including other eligible member or members of the Family shall remain suspended until the conclusion of criminal proceedings instituted against him. It is so because if ultimately such person is acquitted of the charge of murder or abetting in the commission of murder of the Government servant, the Family Pension is payable to such person from the date of death of the Government servant. This is clearly reflected from clause (13)(b)(ii) of Rule 116 of the Pension Rules of 1982. On the other hand, if such person is convicted for the murder or abetting in the commission of the murder of the Government servant, such person, who is otherwise liable to receive the Family Pension is debarred from receiving the Family Pension and Family Pension is payable to other eligible member of the family from the date of death of the Government Servant. Thus, looking to the scheme overall as reflected from clause (13) of Rule 116, challenge to the said clause by the petitioner does not seem to us to be meritorious.