Return has not been filed.

Learned State counsel prays for time to file return.

It being a matter of claim of family pension by widow, I am not inclined to grant further time.

The matter is heard finally.

Widow of a deceased employee has knocked the door of justice seeking redressal of her grievance arising on account of non-payment of family pension.

The facts necessary for adjudication of controversy involved in this case are in narrow encompass and quintessentially stated infra.

2. The husband of the petitioner, while in the services of the respondent, working as 'Peon' in the department of Revenue Government of Chhattisgarh, died in harness on 25.12.2008. The petitioner, being undisputed legally wedded wife, claimed all the retiral dues including family pension payable under Rule 47 of the Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. (herein after referred to as 'Pension Rules, 1976')

3. The respondents authorities, however, apportioned the retiral dues of the deceased employee including family pension between the petitioner and the mother of the deceased employee in the manner that while monetary benefits under GIS Scheme, 25 days of salary and Ex-gratia was released in favour of the petitioner, the GPF, gratuity, leave encashment benefits, arrears of pay were released in favour of Smt. Kothari Bai, mother of deceased employee.

4. Aggrieved by the decision, the petitioner filed a petition before this Court which was disposed off vide order dated 16.03.2012 for consideration by the Committee constituted under judicial orders. The Pension Committee rejected petitioner's claim vide its resolution dated 23.05.2012. The petitioner thereafter filed this petition.

5. Focused and pointed submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that entitlement to family pension is prescribed statutorily under the Pension Rules and family members, who are entitled to such benefit are also prescribed therein. Therefore, it is contended, except the petitioner, no other relative unless included within the definition of 'family' provided under the Rules, could be held entitled to receive family pension. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the provision contained in Rule 47 of the Pension Rules, 1976.

6. In reply, learned State counsel sought to justify the action by submitting the deceased employee had submitted his nomination in which he had nominated his mother to receive these benefits. He submits that once there is a nomination, then in addition to those who would have ordinarily been entitled to pensionary benefits under Rule 47 of the Pension Rules,1976, a nominee would also be entitled. Keeping this aspect in view, the authority proceeded to apportion benefits. Family pension and anticipatory pension were released in favour of the mother of deceased employee and the petitioner was directed to submit a succession certificate in support of her claim. As such certificate was never submitted, pension was being paid to the deceased mother till she died.

7. In order to decide the controversy, it will be appropriate to examine the statutory scheme of the Pension Rules, 1976 with regard to entitlement to receive family pension.

8. The Pension Rules, 1976 makes provision with regard to payment of pension to a Government servant after his retirement and also payment of family pension upon death of the Government servant. The family pension has been defined in Rule 3 of sub-rule (1) of clause (e) as below :

“3(1)(a) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

3(1)(b) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

3(1)(c) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

3(1)(d) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

3(1)(e) “Family Pension” means contributory family pension admissible under rule 47 and includes non-contributory family pension admissible under rule 48;

9. Rule 47 of the Pension Rules, 1976 dealing with contributory family pension provides inter alia that where a Government servant dies while in service or after retirement from service in the circ