Back
2025 Supreme(Guj) 1478
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
M.K. THAKKER, J.
Jigesh Harikrushna Patel - Appellant
Versus
The Asstt. P.F. Commissioner - Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 220 of 2020
Decided On : 09-07-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Sunil K. Shah, Sushma S. Shah
For the Respondent: P.J. Davawala
The definition of 'family' in the Employees' Pension Scheme excludes the petitioner's claim for pension as he does not fall under eligible dependents, requiring documented marital proof.
Headnote:(A) Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 - Definition of 'family' - Challenge to denial of nominee pension benefits on grounds of lack of formal divorce decree and status under EP Scheme - ('Family' includes spouse, children, or adopted children; Petitioner deemed not a dependent) - Court upheld Authority's requirement for documented proof of marital status and confirmed lack of entitlement under the definition. (Paras 6.1 and 6.6)
(B) Right to Pension - Judicial standpoint that pension is a right and not discretionary - Court highlighted the necessity of catering interpretations that do not restrict beneficiaries' rights unjustly. (Para 6.2)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, as the sister's son of the deceased employee, claimed family pension after the demise of his uncle, who had nominated him but lacked formal proof of divorce from his wife. The Authority requested documentation, which the petitioner could not fulfill due to the customary divorce.
Findings of Court:
The Authority's refusal to grant the family pension was upheld; the petitioner was not considered a dependent per the EP Scheme definition.
Issues: Whether the petitioner qualifies as 'family' under the EP Scheme, and whether the Authority's denial based on lack of formal divorce documentation was appropriate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that, as defined by the EP Scheme, the petitioner does not meet 'family' criteria, thereby affirming the Authority's decision not to grant the pension.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to non-granting of nominee pension (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments on nomination and divorce decree (Para 4) |
| 3. counterarguments on family pension eligibility (Para 5) |
| 4. court's analysis on pension rights (Para 6) |
| 5. dismissal of the petition (Para 7) |
JUDGMENT :
M.K. THAKKER, J.
1. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, thereby challenging the action of the respondent - Authority for not granting the benefit of nominee pension and asking the petitioner to submit the request to confirm the signature of the deceased member in Form No.2 as well as also asking the petitioner to produce the divorce decree issued by the competent Court of law in support of the deceased member being a divorcee.
2. It is the case of the present petitioner that the petitioner's uncle (Mama), namely, Pravinbhai Mangalbhai Patel, was born on 18.10.1960 and expired on 02.11.2018. The uncle was in the service with M/s. Mafatlal Industires, Mill Road, Nadiad at Kheda on 01.11.1990, he gave his resignation on 31.10.2017 after serving for more than 27 years. Pravinbhai Mangalbhai Patel’s father expired on 05.06.1990 and his mother expired on 07.05.2017. The uncle had married with one Shilpaben and thereafter, the uncle had taken a divorce from his wife on 04.03.1992. The uncle was not having any daughter or son born out of the wedlock. Therefore, the petitioner, being a sister's son, was the only heir of the uncle, namely, Pravinbhai Mangalbhai Patel. During the lifetime of the uncle, a nomination and declaration form was filed on 08.12.1998, nominating the present petitioner as a nominee to receive the pension after the death of the uncle.
2.1 On the death of the uncle, the petitioner gave an application for monthly pension in Form No.10-D, claiming the amount of pension as well as has also filed an afÏdavit on non- judicial stamp paper of Rs.20/- on 03.12.2018. The petitioner had also produced a copy of the communication addressed by the employer recommending to grant the benefit of pension to the petitioner, being a sole heir of the deceased. However, instead of granting the family pension, the Authority has called for a divorce decree from the present petitioner. In the absence of the same, the family pension was not granted to the present petitioner, which is the subject matter of the challenge before this Court.
3. Head learned advocate Mr. Sunil K. Shah for the petitioner and learned advocate Ms. P.J. Davawala for the respondent.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Shah submits that during the lifetime of the deceased employee, the declaration and nomination form was filled up, nominating the present petitioner as an heir. However, after the death of the deceased, the petitioner was asked to produce the divorce decree given by the Court of law. Learned advocate Mr. Shah submits that as it was a customary divorce, therefore, the petitioner was unable to produce the divorce decree and in absence of the same, the family pension was not ground. Learned advocate Mr. Shah has relied on the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Rekhaben Kamleshbhai Nanavati Vs. Employees’ Provident Fund Organization Anr. 2016 (4) GLR 2768 and submitted that when the member employee has no spouse or children can nominate anybody to receive the pension after his death and so long as such nomination exists only the nominee remains entitled to receive the pension. Learned advocate Mr. Shah submits that the beneficial provisions for payment of pension is required to be interpreted liberally. However, instead of granting the benefit of pension, the Authority has denied for the same in view of above a technical objection.
4.1 In view of the above submissions, learned advocate Mr. Shah has prayed to allow this petition by directing the respondent - Authority to start making payment of family pension to the present petitioner, who is the sister's son of the deceased, namely, Pravinbhai Mangalbhai Patel.
5. Per contra, learned advocate
