RAKHI CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed against the order dtd. 15/7/2021 by which the claim of petitioner for grant of family pension has been rejected.

(2.) It is the case of petitioner that late mother of petitioner was working on the post of Assistant Teacher. She died in harness on 4/2/2002 and thereafter her dues were paid to her husband and pension was also continued. Petitioner got married to Anand Kumar Tanwar on 17/2/1997 and on 19/12/2003 the marriage was severed by a decree of mutual divorce and accordingly petitioner started residing with her father along with her son. Her father, namely, Devendra Pal Singh Chouhan expired on 5/8/2016 and accordingly petitioner filed a Writ Petition for grant of family pension after death of her father which was registered as WP. No.116/2017. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dtd. 5/9/2019 with a direction to respondents to decide the representation. It was the case of petitioner that even the divorced daughter should be treated to be entitled for family pension in view of the provisions incorporated in the Central Government Civil Services Rules and many other States have also incorporated the same. By impugned order, the claim of petitioner has been rejected.

(3.) Per contra , petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for respondent/State. It is submitted that petitioner suffers from 40% permanent disability due to Polio which is evident from the disability certificate issued by the competent authority and therefore, it cannot be presumed that petitioner is unable to earn her bread and butter for herself. It is submitted that after the death of her mother, she had submitted an application for grant of compassionate appointment in which she had disclosed that her elder brother is working as Principal in Government Higher Secondary School and accordingly her candidature was rejected in the year 2010. It is submitted that along with an application for appointment on compassionate ground a different ration card was submitted and now a separate ration card has been submitted and accordingly it is clear that petitioner is trying to get the advantage of ration card which was prepared for her convenience. The service conditions of mother of petitioner are governed by the provisions of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and the provisions of Central Government Civil Services Rules are not applicable. The family pension is payable to an unmarried handicapped daughter and therefore it is not applicable to the present case.