Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 100 (GUJ)

Rajrani Harishchandra Kapoor v. Shahnadhikari

2015-01-27

C.L.SONI

body2015
Order C.L. Soni, J. 1. The claim made in this petition is for grant of family pension. The case of the petitioner is that, her mother Smt. Jagdarshanaben was working with respondent No. 1 as a Teacher and she was getting pension from respondent No. 1. Smt. Jagdarshanaben expired on 18.01.2011 and before that father of the petitioner expired on 19.01.2010. The petitioner, being the only daughter of the family of Smt. Jagdarshanaben, has become entitled to family pension after the death of Smt. Jagdarshanaben. It is further averred that the petitioner is a divorcee, a handicapped person and has got a son. The petitioner is not able, to earn any livelihood. 2. The petition is opposed on behalf of respondent No. 1 by filing affidavit-in-reply mainly on the ground that as per the Rule for grant of family pension, a son or daughter shall become ineligible for family pension from the date, he or she gets married. 3. I have heard Mr. A.S. Asthavadi, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Patel, learned advocate for H.L. Patel Advocates, for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Neeraj Ashar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No. 3. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Asthavadi for the petitioner submitted that till the petitioner got divorced, she had a status of a married woman and, therefore, it could be said that she was not entitled to family pension after the death of her mother. However, after her divorce, what is required to be examined is, whether the petitioner could be said to be a dependent of the family of the deceased employee or not. Mr. Asthavadi, learned advocate submitted that since the petitioner is not now having status of a married daughter, this Court may consider the case of the petitioner for grant of benefit of family pension. 5. Mr. Patel, learned advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that the benefit of family pension is available under the specific statutory rules and a provision is made for disentitlement of a son or daughter for family pension from the date, he or she gets married as they would not be said to be a part of the family of the deceased employee. Mr. 1 and 2 submitted that the benefit of family pension is available under the specific statutory rules and a provision is made for disentitlement of a son or daughter for family pension from the date, he or she gets married as they would not be said to be a part of the family of the deceased employee. Mr. Patel, therefore, submitted that even if a married son or daughter gets divorce, they would not acquire the status of a unmarried son or daughter and, therefore, they cannot be made entitlement to family pension. 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Ashar appearing for respondent No. 3 also submitted that when the statutory rules provides for ineligibility of a son or daughter to get family pension on getting married, no relaxation in such rules could be read so as to extend the benefit of family pension to divorcee. 7. Having heard learned advocates for the parties, it appears that there is no dispute on the fact that the petitioner is the daughter of deceased employee who was getting regular pension. There is also no dispute on the fact that the petitioner was a married daughter when the deceased employee - mother of the petitioner was getting regular pension. As provided in sub-rule (b), a son or daughter shall become ineligible for family pension from the date they get married. Sub-rule (b) as quoted in the reply at page 38 reads as under: "(b) A son or daughter shall become ineligible for Family Pension under this sub-rule from the date he or she gets married." 8. The above sub-rule clearly provides ineligibility of a son or daughter for family pension from the date they get married. There is no provision to make them eligible for family pension on getting divorce. It is required to be seen, whether on the date when the deceased employee was getting pension, the petitioner was part of the family or not. Undisputedly, the petitioner was not a part of the family of the deceased employee as the petitioner was a married woman. Therefore, subsequent divorce of the petitioner would not make the petitioner eligible for family pension. The Court has full sympathy with the petitioner as she is handicapped and she has a son to look after. Undisputedly, the petitioner was not a part of the family of the deceased employee as the petitioner was a married woman. Therefore, subsequent divorce of the petitioner would not make the petitioner eligible for family pension. The Court has full sympathy with the petitioner as she is handicapped and she has a son to look after. However, when above referred rule provides for ineligibility of a married son and daughter to get family pension, the petitioner cannot be helped out. 9. From the above said reasons, the petition is dismissed. Notice discharged. At this stage, Mr. Asthavadi, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that Central Government has made specific Rule to extend the benefit of family pension to the children who get divorce and, therefore, the benefit of family pension could be extended in the case of the petitioner who is a divorcee even by reading down sub-rule (b) which provides ineligibility of a married son or daughter for getting family pension. Such contention cannot be accepted as like the provision made by Central Government, when the State Government has made no provisions to extend the benefit of family pension to the children who get divorce, the State Government cannot be directed to confer similar benefit available to the dependent of the employee of the Central Government.