Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 111 (MP)

Rakhi Chauhan v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2025-02-13

G.S.AHLUWALIA

body2025
ORDER : This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed against the order dated 15.07.2021 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 04.02.2002 and thereafter her dues were paid to her husband and pension was also continued. Petitioner got married to Anand Kumar Tanwar on 17.02.1997 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 05.08.2016 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 dated 05.09.2019 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. Challenging the order passed by respondents, it is submitted by counsel for petitioner that since petitioner is a divorced woman, therefore, she is entitled for family pension. However, it was fairly conceded that under Rule 47(6) of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1976 it is nowhere provided that even a divorced daughter is entitled for family pension. 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 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. 4. Heard learned counsel for parties. 5. It is the case of petitioner that she got married to Anand Kumar Tanwar on 17.02.1997. Thereafter, it appears that they obtained divorce by mutual consent by decree dated 19.12.2003 i.e. after death of her mother. Petitioner has not filed the copy of judgment and has merely filed a copy of decree. 6. Be that whatever it may be. 7. It is no where mentioned in the representation that she is unemployed and has no source of livelihood. A very vague statement was made in the representation that her father had looked after petitioner and her son from the pension which he was getting. If petitioner has obtained divorce by mutual consent, then some permanent alimony or some maintenance amount must also have been awarded to her. Petitioner has deliberately maintained beautiful silence on maintenance which she is getting or as to whether she is an unemployed woman or not. 8. Rule 47(6)(c) of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1976 provides that the family pension payable to such a son or daughter shall be stopped if he or she starts earning his/her livelihood. There is absolutely no whisper about the same. Counsel for petitioner could not point out any judgment in the State of Madhya Pradesh to submit that Rule 47(6) of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1976 was made applicable even to a divorced daughter. 9. There is absolutely no whisper about the same. Counsel for petitioner could not point out any judgment in the State of Madhya Pradesh to submit that Rule 47(6) of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1976 was made applicable even to a divorced daughter. 9. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that in absence of any provision for grant of family pension to a divorced daughter as well as in absence of any specific averment that she is not earning her livelihood coupled with the fact that there is no averment about permanent alimony or terms and conditions of divorce by mutual consent as well as in absence of any averment that she is getting any maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., this Court is of considered opinion that no case is made out warranting interference. 10. Ex consequnti, petition fails and is hereby dismissed.