Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt.Shanta Bai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21458
1 WP.No. 5485 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 11th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 5485 of 2013
SMT.SHANTA BAI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Kashif Hussain - learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri K.K. Prajapati learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State.
ORDER
With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner seeking following relief(s):-
"(i) That, the respondents may kindly be directed to make payment of 50% portion of family pension w.e.f. the date of attaining majority age by Mek Bahadur and Padam Bahadur i.e. in the year 1996 alongwith pension arrear and 12% p.a. interest thereon.Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD AHMAD Signing time: 9/17/2025 10:03:19 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21458 2 WP.No. 5485 of 2013
(ii) That, the respondents be further directed to grant revised family pension to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2006 as per the revision of pay Rules, 2009 alongwith pension arrear, interest @ 12% p.a. thereon.
(iii) That, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, heavy cost be imposed upon the respondents and same be awarded to the petitioner or any other order or direction deemed fit in the circumstances of the case be issued in the favour of the petitioner. "
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the husband of petitioner late Shri Jang Bahadur Thapa was posted as a Constable in the respondent department and during the service period, on 4.11.1984 he passed away. After death of Late Shri Jang Bahadur Thapa, family pension was granted in two portions. 50% family pension was granted to the petitioner and remaining 50% family pension was granted to two other sons namely Mek Bahadur Thapa and Padam Bahadur Thapa born by second wife of late Shri Jang Bahadur Thapa. It is further submitted that in the year 1996, Mek Bahadur Thapa and Padam Bahadur Thapa attained the age of majority. It is further submitted that in the year 1996, when the second portion of 50% of the remaining family pension was required to be remitted into the account of the petitioner, the respondent did not take action for remitting the said 50% family pension into the petitioner's account. When petitioner got information about attaining the majority of Mek Bahadur and Padam Bahadur Thapa, he submitted a representation dated 25.5.2012 before respondent No.4 requesting to pay entire family pension (100%). However, respondents did not take any action in the matter. Whereafter petitioner served a legal notice dated 20.4.2013. It is further submitted that when the children of second wife attained the majority, then entire family pension becomes payable to Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD AHMAD Signing time: 9/17/2025 10:03:19 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21458 3 WP.No. 5485 of 2013 the petitioner who is widow of late Shri Jang Bahadur Thapa. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the relief sought in the instant petition may kindly be granted by allowing it.
4. Per-contra learned Government Advocate for the respondents State submits that as per Pension Rules, when Mek Bahadur Thapa and Padam Bahadur Thapa attained the age of majority, 50% portion of the pension has been stopped and according to pension rules, pension does not provide for grant of entire pension to petitioner. It is further submitted that in view of the notification (annexure R/1), the petitioner is not entitled to get 50% pension, therefore, he prays to dismiss the petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The entire controversy has already been settled by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dropti Bai v. High Court of M.P. and another 2002 (2) M.P.L.J. 497 The relevant paragraphs of the said case reads and under:
"9. Under sub-rule (2-A) of Rule 47 of the Rules of 1976, the amount of family pension shall be fixed at monthly rates. Rule 47 applies as provided under sub-rule (1) to a Government servant entering service in a pensionable establishment on or after 1st April, 1966, and to a Government servant who was in service on 31st March, 1966 and came to be governed by the provisions of the Family Pension Scheme for State Government Employees. The amount under sub-rule (2) of Rule 47 is to be determined without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-rule (3) where a Government servant dies while in service Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD AHMAD Signing time: 9/17/2025 10:03:19 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21458 4 WP.No. 5485 of 2013 after having rendered not less than seven years service provided he had been medically examined and found fit for appointment in the Government or after retirement from service and was on the date of death in receipt of pension or compassionate allowance where the pay of Government servant is below Rs. 400/-; the amount of monthly family pension is 30 per cent of pay subject to a minimum of Rs. 60 and a maximum of Rs. 100, as fixed initially. In the case where the pay of Government servant was Rs. 400/- and above, but not exceeding Rs. 1200/-, 15 per cent of pay subject to minimum of Rs. 100 and maximum of Rs. 160 and above Rs. 1200/-, 12% of pay subject to a minimum of Rs. 160/- and maximum of Rs. 250/-. Sub-rule (3) also provides that a Government servant who is governed by Workman's Compensation Act dies while in service after having rendered not less than seven years continuous service, the rate of family pension payable to the family shall be equal to 50% of the last pay drawn or twice the family pension admissible under sub-rule (2) whichever is less. Sub-rule 3(b) of rule 47 of the Rules of 1976 provides where a Government servant who is not governed by the Workman's Compensation Act dies after retirement how the pension is to be determined. The formula is further given in sub-rule 3(c). What is to be emphasized is that computation of family pension does not depend upon number of persons entitled to its apportionment. Sub-rule (7) and sub-rule (8) of Rule 47 are necessary to be quoted below:--Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD AHMAD Signing time: 9/17/2025 10:03:19 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21458 5 WP.No. 5485 of 2013 "7(a)(i) Where the family pension is payable to more widows than one, the family pension shall be paid to the widows in equal shares.
(ii) On the death of a widow, her share of family pension shall become payable to her eligible child;
Provided that if the widow is not survived by any child, her share of the family pension shall cease to be payable.
(b) Where the deceased Government servant or pensioner is survived from another wife who is not alive, the eligible child or children shall be entitled to the share of the family pension which the mother would have received if she had been alive at the time of death of Government servant or pensioner.
(c) Where a female Government servant is survived by a husband and an eligible minor child from the first husband the family pension will be paid to both in equal shares. In the absence of the second husband, share of his pension will be paid to his eligible minor child from deceased female Government servant.
(8)(i) Except as provided in sub-rule (7) the family pension shall not be payable to more than one member of the family at the same time.
(ii) If a deceased Government servant or pensioner leaves behind a widow or widower, the family pension shall become payable to the widow or widower, failing which to the eligible child.
(iii) If sons and unmarried daughters are alive, unmarried daughters shall not be eligible for family pension unless the sons attain the age of 25 Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD AHMAD Signing time: 9/17/2025 10:03:19 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21458 6 WP.No. 5485 of 2013 years and thereby become ineligible for the grant of family pension."
10. It is apparent from the bare reading of sub-rule (7) of rule 47 of the Rules of 1976 that family pension is payable to more widows than one, the family pension shall be paid to the widows in equal shares; on the death of a widow, her share of family pension shall become payable to her eligible child provided that if the widow is not survived by any child, her share of the family pension shall cease to be payable. In the instant case only one widow of the late employee survived; other died in his lifetime before performance of the second marriage with the petitioner. In the case of two widows, sub- rule (7) of Rule 47 of the Rules of 1976 provides that if two widows are receiving the pension, on the death of a widow, her share of family pension shall become payable to her eligible child; if the widow is not survived by any child, her share of the family pension shall cease to be payable. This proviso to sub- rule 7(a) of rule 47 of the Rules of 1976 is not applicable in the instant case as family pension was not payable to more widows than one in the instant case. In the instant case, sub-rule 7(b) of rule 47 was attracted on the death of deceased Government servant. Deceased Government servant had one wife and eligible child or children from first wife, thus, the children from the first wife became entitled to receive the amount of pension which mother would have obtained if she had been alive at the time of death of the Government servant or pensioner. There is no such proviso added to clause (b) of sub-rule (7) of rule 47 of the Rules of 1976 as is added to clause (a) of sub-rule (7) of rule 47 which provides the family pension shall cease to be payable if the pension was apportioned to two widow's to the extent of share of one widow if she is not survived by any child. Sub-rule (8) provides that except as provided in sub-rule (7), Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD AHMAD Signing time: 9/17/2025 10:03:19 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21458 7 WP.No. 5485 of 2013 family pension shall not be payable to more than one member of the family at the same time. If a deceased Government servant or pensioner leaves behind a widow or widower, the family pension shall become payable to the widow or widower, failing which to the eligible child. If sons and unmarried daughters are alive, unmarried daughters shall not be eligible for family pension unless the sons attain the age of 25 years and thereby become ineligible for the grant of family pension. Under sub-rule (10) of Rule 47 of the Rules of 1976 where family pension is granted under this rule to a minor, it shall be payable to the guardian on behalf of the minor. It is not the case of both husband and wife were in the Government employment, as such sub-rule (11) of Rule 47 of the Rules of 1976 has no application which deals with the concept of two family pensions.
11. Under clause (b) sub-rule (14) of rule 47 of the Rules of 1976 "family" in relation to the Government servant means:--
"14(b)(i) Wife or wives in the case of a male Government servant or husband in the case of a female Government servant. Where a female Government servant or a male Government servant dies leaving behind widower or widow and eligible child or children and the widower or the widow, as the case may be, remarried before the death of the Government servant, the family pension payable to a child or children in respect of the deceased shall be payable to the surviving person provided he or she is the guardian of such child or children. Where the surviving person has ceased to be guardian of such child or children, such family pension shall be payable to the person who is the actual guardian of such child or children.Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD AHMAD Signing time: 9/17/2025 10:03:19 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21458 8 WP.No. 5485 of 2013
(ii) son or an unmarried or widowed or divorced daughter till such son or daughter attains the age of 25 years or upto the date of his/her marriage/remarriage as the case may be, whichever is earlier, subject to the income criteria as prescribed by the State Government from time to time.
(iii) the parent, provided they were wholly-
dependent on the Government Servant when he/she was alive and the deceased employee had left behind neither a widow nor a child subject to the dependency criteria as prescribed by the State Government from time to time.
(iv) son, unmarried or widowed or divorced daughter and parents, as the case may be, shall provide an annual certificate of income/dependency criteria as fixed by the State Government from time to time.
12. The respondent No. 2 places reliance on memorandum dated 12th September, 1988 which simply reiterates the provision of clause (a) of sub-rule (7) of rule 47 of the Rules of 1976. It states that where the family pension is being paid to more than one widow, it has to be paid in equal shares; if any of them dies and is not survived by a child, pension payable to such a widow ceases; the other widow shall be entitled only to the share which was being paid to her. The memorandum of Finance Department dated 12th September, 1988 (Annexure R/2-A) also does not cover the case of the petitioner because it is not the case where two widows were receiving the pension; it is not the case to which clause (a) of sub-rule (7) of rule 47 of the Rules of 1976 is attracted, but as held above, it is a case where clause (b) of sub-rule (7) of rule 47 of the Rules of 1976 Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD AHMAD Signing time: 9/17/2025 10:03:19 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21458 9 WP.No. 5485 of 2013 is attracted. There is no provision under Rule 47 providing the ceasure of the share of the minor children on attaining the age of majority; clause (b) has no such proviso attached to it as in clause (a) of sub-rule (7) of rule 47 of the Rules of 1976. The circular and rule 47 do not provide for ceasing of the share which was being paid to the children of the pre-deceased widow of an employee on their attaining majority. The ceasure is provided in the case of more than one widow obtaining the pension and one of them dies without leaving a child which is not the factual situation obtainable in the instant case. Thus, ceasure of pension to the extent of share of minor sons on attaining majority is not provided under the rules or the memorandum.
13. Respondent No. 2 Joint Director appeared in person and stated that family pension is fixed amount which was being apportioned to the petitioner and two minor sons; amount of family pension was such which would have been paid to only one widow in case she was only person obtaining it.
14. It is the case where only apportionment was taking place; no additional family pension was being paid by virtue of the widow; the pre-deceased widow's issues obtaining the pension. Thus, in my opinion, purposive interpretation of the rule has to be such which advance the cause of social justice and pension is not reduced particularly when it was not so enhanced owing to the existence of sons of a pre-deceased widow; had they not survived the deceased, the entire amount would have been payable to the petitioner right from the date of death of deceased employee.
15. Pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of employer. There cannot be any forfeiture of the pension or cessation in the present case. The pension is a payment for the service rendered by the deceased. It is a social Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD AHMAD Signing time: 9/17/2025 10:03:19 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21458 10 WP.No. 5485 of 2013 welfare measure rendering socio-economic justice to those who had served the employer and is governed by the rules. Family pension is a benefit which is in consonance with and in furtherance of the goals of Constitution. It does not sound to reason if an example is taken that a widow is entitled for family pension of Rs. 100/-; she would receive Rs. 100/- alone and if there is one more person entitled to it, it is divided into Rs. 50/- each, and if such other person entitlement ceases widow gets only Rs. 50/-; such interpretation defeats the very intendment of socio economic justice and would be violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and cannot be withstand judicial scrutiny. It would amount to forfeiture of pension which is otherwise payable to a family. In the instant case, rule itself does not provide for ceasure of pension in the case of clause (b) of sub-rule (7) of rule 47 of the Rules of 1976 as discussed above nor it is provided in the memo contained in Annexure R/2-A. In the circumstances, the conclusion is inescapable that entire family pension becomes payable to the widow and the amount which was being paid on apportionment to the minor sons cannot be ceased on their attaining the majority but revert to widow. When family pension was being apportioned, it was with a view and underlying idea that every dependent should get some amount. That cannot be said to be in negation of right to obtain a particular sum which is not variable nor dependent upon the number of persons obtaining it. Simple apportionment cannot give right to the respondents to cease portion of it when only one pension and a fixed amount is payable. Apportionment is simply a facility; substantive right is to obtain the family pension payable to a family computed under the rules. Otherwise the action would be termed to be arbitrary and impermissible.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD AHMAD Signing time: 9/17/2025 10:03:19 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21458 11 WP.No. 5485 of 2013
7. The relevant paragraphs of the order dated 01.08.2025 passed in W.P. No. 10523/2022 (Smt. Uma Soni v. State of Madhya Pradesh) read as under:
"6. It is has been conclusively held by this Court that when family pension is to be apportioned between two wives or one wife or children of first wife then when the first wife dies or the children of first wife attain the majority then the entire family pension becomes payable to the second wife who is widow of government servant. The same has been held by this Court in the case of Dropti Bai v. High Court of M.P. and others 2002(2)M.P.L.J. 497.
7. In view of the aforesaid, since two children of the first wife of the deceased government servant are no longer entitled to family pension for the reason that the daughter has married and the son has attained employment after attaining the age of 25 years, therefore, the petitioner alone is entitled to 100% family pension. If she is not getting 100% of family pension, then the same be paid to her positively within two months from the date of production of copy of this order with entire arrears if not already paid."
8. As Mek Bahadur and Padam Bahadur Thapa had attained the age of majority in year 1996, and the present petition was filed in year 2013, the petitioner is not entitled to receive interest on the arrears of pension.
9. Considering the above, the petition is allowed. The petitioner alone is entitled to get 100% family pension after attaining the age of majority of Mek Bahadur and Padam Bahadur Thapa. The respondent/concerned authority are directed to pay the 100% family pension along with entire arrears, if not already be paid to petitioner positively within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The respondent/concerned authority is further directed to pay revised family pension to the petitioner which has been revised w.e.f. 1.1.2006 as per the pay of Revision Rules 2009.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD AHMAD Signing time: 9/17/2025 10:03:19 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21458 12 WP.No. 5485 of 2013
10. With the aforesaid observation, the petition is disposed of.
C.C. as per rules.
(Anand Singh Bahrawat) Judge Ahmad Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD AHMAD Signing time: 9/17/2025 10:03:19 AM