Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 751 (MP)

Rukmani Tiwari v. State of M. P.

2020-07-30

SUJOY PAUL

body2020
ORDER 1. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 13.7.2019 (Annexure P/5) whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of family pension was rejected by assigning twin reasons:- (i) There is no Government order which makes it clear that a handicap dependent of pensioner is entitled for grant of pension (ii) petitioner has completed the age of 56 years and therefore, as per Rules, petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of family pension. 2. Ms. Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order by placing heavy reliance on rule 47 (6) of M.P. Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976. 3. Per contra, learned panel lawyer for the State urged that as per the return, petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of pension because after attaining the age of 25 years, family pension is not payable to the dependent. Apart from this, rules 7 and 18 of the aforesaid rules do not permit the department to pay pension to the petitioner. 4. Ms. Gautam urged that reliance on both the rules is erroneous. Rule 18 of the said Rules is applicable in the case of re-employment/reengagement. Rule 7 is also not an impediment for grant of pension. Case of the petitioner is squarely covered by said rule (6) of Rule 47. 5. No other point is pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. On careful reading of rules 7 and 18 of the aforesaid Rules makes it clear that arguments of Ms. Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner has substantial force. Said rules cannot be pressed into services in a case of this nature wherein petitioner is not claiming any benefit upon reemployment of the deceased government servant. 8. Petitioner is admittedly the daughter of Late Halkeram Tiwari, a Government Servant. The categorical averments and supporting averments regarding nature of handicap of petitioner is not disputed by the department. Department has also not disputed the handicap certificates (Annexure P/3). As per certificates, petitioner is visually handicapped to the extent of 90%. She is handicapped to the extent of 40% as per yet another certificate annexed with Annexure P/3. 9. The categorical averments and supporting averments regarding nature of handicap of petitioner is not disputed by the department. Department has also not disputed the handicap certificates (Annexure P/3). As per certificates, petitioner is visually handicapped to the extent of 90%. She is handicapped to the extent of 40% as per yet another certificate annexed with Annexure P/3. 9. Rule 47 (6) of M.P. Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976 reads as under:- (6) The period for which family pension is payable shall be as follows:- (i) *********** (ii) ********* (iii) in the case of an unmarried daughter, until she attains the age of [24] years or until she gets married, whichever is earlier : Provided that if the son or unmarried daughter of a Government servant is suffering from any disorder or disability of mind or is physically crippled or disabled so as to render him or her unable to earn a living even after attaining the age of [25 years] the family pension shall be payable to such son or unmarried daughter for life subject to the following conditions, namely :- 10. A plain reading of this Rule makes it clear that an unmarried daughter of a government servant who is suffering from physical disability and is unable to earn livelihood is entitled to get family pension even after attaining the age of 25 years. The rule, on the face of it makes it clear that both the reasons assigned in the impugned order cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. In other words, the pension rules aforesaid does permit the petitioner to get the family pensnion being a handicapped person. She is entitled to get the same even after completion of 25 years of age. 11. In the result, impugned order dated 13.7.2019 is set-aside. The respondents shall calculate the family pension payable to the petitioner from due date and pay the same to the petitioner within 60 days from the date of communication of this order. This order shall reap the arrears of family pension from due date. If the order is not complied with within the aforesaid period, it shall carry 12 % interest till the date of actual payment to the petitioner. 12. With the aforesaid directions, this petition stands allowed and disposed of .