DROPTI BAI Vs. HIGH COURT OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) QUESTION involved in the writ petition is when family pension is payable and is being apportioned to three persons whether in the event of ceaser of the entitlement of one or two of them whether the amount of family pension has to be reduced proportionately; particularly when in the absence of others whose entitlement has ceased the subsisting incumbent would have obtained full family pension.

(2.) THE facts elucidate that petitioner's husband was in the service of High Court of Madhya Pradesh and was working as Peon; he died on 31 -8 -1978. Petitioner claimed family pension being widow; she was asked to submit succession certificate which she obtained on 12 -8 -1996; petitioner was second married wife of the deceased; first wife died in the lifetime of the deceased leaving behind two sons; the marriage was performed with the petitioner after death of first wife according to the hindu rituals. After death of Girdharilal the family pension was divided in two parts; one was being paid to the petitioner and the other to the minor sons left by the first wife. Petitioner alleges that from December, 1998 she was receiving a paltry sum of Rs. 778/ - as pension; the other part of the pension which was being paid to the minor sons was forfeited on their attaining the age of majority. Petitioner submits that in case of one widow without any son of the first wife; she would have obtained the amount which was being paid to her and two sons who attained majority. When the sons attained the age of majority, the amount should have been reverted back to her as it was only the apportionment of the amount of family pension which was being done; no additional pension was being paid to the minor sons.

(3.) IN the return respondent No. 2 contends that petitioner was granted family pension being widow of late Shri Girdharilal from December, 1988; she was receiving only Rs. 778/ - as pension and the other part of the pension which was being provided to the minor sons from the first wife was stopped on their becoming major. Petitioner is not entitled to amount of pension which was being paid to the minor children of the first wife of late Shri Girdharilal. The respondent places reliance on rule 47(7) of M. P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short "the Rules of 1976") and the executive instructions issued by the State Government. At the time of death of Girdharilal as per prevailing instructions issued by the State Government 50% of the amount admissible by way of pension was given to minor sons and remaining 50% was released in favour of the petitioner.