Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 56 (MP)

Kamla w/o Late Babulal Jain v. State of M. P.

2009-01-12

SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2009
JUDGMENT With consent heard finally. Petitioner's son Dinesh was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher in the School Education Department of the Govt. of M. P. vide order dated 3-7-1986 (Annexure P-1). He joined his duties on 14-7-1986 and died in harness on 5-8-2005. 2. According to the petitioner, her son Dinesh was unmarried. He had nominated her being his mother and dependent for receiving all types of his death claims. It is the case of the petitioner that her claim for family pension has been rejected by the respondents vide Annexure P-5 on the ground that she is not entitled for the same. Aggrieved she submitted her representation dated 16-1-2007 (Annexure P-6) and has filed this petition. 3. Petitioner claims that her son Dinesh had worked with the respondents for more than 19 years in the circumstances she is entitled for family pension in view of Rule 47 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short Pension Rules). Reliance has been placed on the order passed by this Court in the case of Munni Bai vs. Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur, 2005 (1) MPLJ 164. 4. The respondents have filed reply and have stated that in the nomination form (Annexure P-3) a declaration was made by the deceased to the effect that the family pension shall be payable in the event of his death after completion of 25 years of qualifying service. According to the respondents as the petitioner's son did not complete 25 years of services prior to his death the petitioner has been rightly denied family pension. 5. Having considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, in my considered view the denial of the family pension to the petitioner on the basis of document Annexure P-3 is wholly illegal. The respondents could not point out as to under which Rule the said declaration was incorporated in Annexure P-3 fixing qualifying period of 25 years for extending the benefit of family pension. On the other hand, on the basis of Rule 47 of the Pension Rules as also the order passed by this Court in the case of Munni Bai vs. Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur (supra) it is clear mat if a Government servant who is not governed by the Workman's Compensation Act, 1923 dies while in service after having rendered not less than seven years continuous service the family pension is payable. 6. 6. In the circumstances, the rejection of the petitioner's claim on the ground that her son did not complete 25 years of service is wholly misconceived and is contrary to the Pension Rules. 7. Accordingly the petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The respondents are directed to release the family pension to the petitioner with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of entitlement till payment. Petition allowed.