The widow is entitled to the family pension and retirement benefits as per the statutory provisions, irrespective of the deceased employee's nomination of legal heirs.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Learned advocate Mr.Munshaw, waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent No.1.

2. The writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate directions on the respondent authorities to release the benefit of pension/retirement benefits along with 12% interest from 31.03.2017.

3. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Ghavariya, has submitted that at this stage, so far as the claim of interest is concerned, the petitioner will make appropriate representation before the respondent authorities claiming the same.

4. The petitioner’s late husband, who was serving as a Statistical Assistant and after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2017, unfortunately, passed way on 16.11.2018. It is the case of the petitioner that though she is widow of late Mr.Narsinhbhai Lakhabhai Ranpariya, she is not being paid the family pension/retirement benefits, though many representations are made to the respondent authorities, in this regard. The respondent No.1 addressed a communication dated 23.09.2019 asking the petitioner to remain present at the Taluka Panchayat Office, Jasdan on 05.10.2019 with all the relevant documents pertaining to pension case of her late husband. Again, the petitioner was called upon by the respondent authorities vide letter dated 14.11.2019 to deposit an amount of Rs.19,750/- towards recovery of some legal dues of the deceased husband of the petitioner. In order to see that the petitioner receives the family pension, she deposited the amount of Rs.19,750/- on 02.01.2020 before the office of the respondent No.1. However, no pension was released and accordingly, she made another representation on 03.11.2020 claiming the retirement benefits.

5. It appears that, there was some dispute with regard to payment of pension whether it should be paid to the petitioner or her son, in view of the objection/application given by the late husband of the petitioner. Accordingly, the respondent authorities asked the son of the petitioner to furnish the necessary documents for release of retirement benefits to the petitioner.

6. Learned advocate Mr.Ghavariya, has submitted that as per the provisions of Section 88 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002, the wife of the deceased employee would be the first beneficiary to receive the family pension after the demise of the husband. Learned advocate Mr.Ghavariya, has further submitted that though an application for removing the petitioner as a nominee has been made by the deceased husband, the petitioner would be entitled to pension and other retirement benefits. In support of his submissions, learned advocate Mr.Ghavariya, has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of G.L.Bhatia Versus Union of India [1999 (5) SCC 237] and thus, it is urged by him that appropriate directions may be issued to the respondent to pay pension and retirement benefits.

7. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Chauhan, appearing for learned advocate Mr.Munshaw, for the respondent No.1, while placing reliance on the affidavit dated 19.04.2022 has submitted that in view of the specific application made by the deceased husband of the petitioner dated 20.04.2017, the respondents have not passed any order releasing the pension and retirement benefits, since in the said application the deceased husband has specifically nominated his son as well as the daughter-in-law. It is thus submitted that in view of the categorical representation made by the deceased husband of the petitioner, no retirement benefits are released in favour of the petitioner. It is further submitted that a communication was also addressed to son of the petitioner on 11.11.2019 to provide relevant documents to enable the authorities to proceed ahead, however no such documents were provided and no cooperation was extended by the son of the petitioner, inspite of reminders sent to him, hence, no final decision is taken.

8. I have heard the learned advocates for th