SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Chh) 44

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 
SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, J.
Ramawtar Singh, S/o Late Janmat Singh, - Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of General Administration, New Mantralaya – Respondent 
WPS No. 4172 of 2013 
Decided on : 19-3- 2025 

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Achyut Tiwari, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Government Advocate Mr. Anil Singh Rajput, Advocate. Amicus Curiae:Mr. Amit Soni, Advocate

A divorced wife is not entitled to family pension under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, as the definition of 'family' excludes divorced spouses.

Headnote:

(A) Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 - Rule 47 - Family pension entitlement - The court examined whether a divorced wife of a deceased government servant is entitled to family pension under the Rules of 1976. The court found that the definition of 'family' in the rules does not include a divorced wife, as the relationship is severed upon divorce. (Paras 1, 11, 14)

(B) Judicial separation vs. divorce - The court distinguished between judicial separation and divorce, affirming that divorce results in a severance of marital status, while judicial separation does not. (Paras 11, 13)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, brother of the deceased government servant, contested the entitlement of the divorced wife to family pension, claiming he should receive it as the nominee. The empowered committee had ruled in favor of the divorced wife based on the interpretation of the rules.

Findings of Court:
The court quashed the committee's order, ruling that the divorced wife is not entitled to family pension as per the Rules of 1976.

Issues: The main issue was whether a divorced wife qualifies for family pension under the Rules of 1976.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Rules of 1976 explicitly exclude divorced wives from the definition of 'family' for pension purposes, thus affirming the severance of marital status upon divorce.

Result: The impugned order dated 27-9-2013 is quashed and the writ petition is partly allowed.

Order :

(Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.)

1. The short question involved in this writ petition is, whether the divorced wife of the deceased Government servant is entitled for family pension in accordance with Rule 47 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1976’)?

2. The aforesaid question arises for consideration on the following factual backdrop: -

3. Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh retired from service on 30-6-2012 as Accountant from the office of District Education Officer, Bilaspur / Mungeli and died on 26-1-2013. In his records, name of the petitioner has been shown as nominee in place of respondent No.6, as marriage between deceased Government servant Bhanu Pratap Singh and respondent No.6 has been dissolved by the judgment & decree dated 18-1-2008 by the jurisdictional matrimonial court.

4. Respondent No.6 (divorced wife of the deceased Government servant) after the death of the deceased Government servant, filed writ petition before this Court bearing W.P.(S)No.1346/2013 claiming retiral benefits which was disposed by this Court on 6-5- 2013 directing the duly constituted empowered committee to consider the case of respondent No.6 herein for grant of family pension pursuant to which the duly constituted empowered committee on 27-9-2013 relying upon Note 2 of Form 3 appended to the Rules of 1976, held that wife will include judicially separated wife, therefore, divorced wife is also entitled for family pension under the Rules of 1976.

5. The petitioner herein, who is younger brother of the deceased Government servant and whose name has been shown as nominee in the service records of the deceased Government servant, has filed the instant writ petition questioning the impugned order dated 27-9-2013 (Annexure P-3) stating that respondent No.6 is not entitled for family pension and the order impugned passed by the duly constituted empowered committee is without jurisdiction and without authority of law, as such, it be quashed and further claimed relief that the respondents be directed to pay / grant family pension to him, as he being the brother and nominee of the deceased Government servant is entitled for the same, which respondent No.6 has opposed by filing return stating inter alia that the petitioner is not entitled for family pension and respondent No.6 being the divorced wife, is entitled for family pension.

6. Mr. Shyam Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that respondent No.6 being the divorced wife is not entitled for family pension in view of the decision rendered by this Court in the matter of Smt. Annapurna Jatvar v. State of Chhattisgarh and others, WPS No.5402/2016, decided on 25-1-2018affirmed by the Division Bench in WA No.151/2018, decided on 5-7-2021, and thus, the petitioner is entitled for family pension.

7. Mr. Anil Singh Rajput, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6, would submit that despite respondent No.6 being the divorced wife, family pension has rightly been granted to her by the duly constituted empowered committee holding that she is entitled for family pension and the petitioner is not entitled for family pension. As such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection.

9. Sub-rule (8)(ii) of Rule 47 of the Rules of 1976 prescribes that if a deceased Government servant or pensioner leaves behind a widow or widower, the family pension shall become payable to the withdow or widower, failing which to the eligible child.

10.Similarly, sub-rule (12)(a)(i) of Rule 47 of the Rules of 1976 states that as soon as a Government servant has completed one year’s continuous service, he shall give details of his family in Form 3 to the Head of Office. Sub-rule (12)(a)(i) of Rule 47 of the Rules of 1976 and Form 3 appended to Rule 47(12) of the Rules of 1976 are reproduced herein-below: -

Sub-rule

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top