KUSUM RAJAWAT Vs. M.P.STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the rejection order dated

(2.) 04.2004 passed by respondent No.3 by which it is communicated to the petitioner that her claim for grant of family pension cannot be considered. It is contended that the son of the petitioner entered in the services of the M.P. Electricity Board in the year 1974 as Office Assistant Grade - III. He was made to work in the office of Chief Computer Process & Operation. The son of the petitioner was suffering from diabetes and was not married. By execution of a document of Will, he nominated the petitioner as his nominee to receive all the benefits of services on account of death of the son. Unfortunately, the son of the petitioner died on 27.03.1999. The petitioner was solely dependant on her son as no other person is there in the family to look after the petitioner. 2. It is contended that since the M.P. Electricity Board had adopted the service rules framed by the State Government, governing the services of the Government employees, the Pension Rules made by the State Government were also adopted. In terms of the amendment made in the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (herein after referred to as 'Rules of 1976), the petitioner also become entitled to get the family pension on account of untimely death of her son. However, though the amendment came into effect from 01.01.1998, the claim of the petitioner for grant of family pension was not considered by the respondents. When subsequently an application was made by the petitioner, by the impugned order dated 02.04.2004, it was communicated that the amendment has been adopted by the respondents with effect from 06.09.1999 and, therefore, the petitioner would not be entitled to grant of family pension. The application made by the petitioner has been rejected. The petitioner thereafter made the approach to Member of the Parliament and all other authorities but since nothing was done, ultimately the writ petition was required to be filed. It is contended that in terms of the specific notification issued by the respondents since the rules were adopted as a whole, any amendment was also to be adopted from the specific date the same became applicable. Therefore, the respondents were not correct in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of family pension.

(3.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.