Eligibility for family pension claims is determined based on applicable rules at the time of death, with no retrospective application permitted.

JUDGMENT :

NIRZAR S. DESAI, J.

Heard learned advocate Mr. Vishal Thakker for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Aakash Gupta for respondents.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-

“(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or such other appropriate writ, thereby quashing and setting aside communication dtd. 08.01.2026 (Ann) and further direct the respondents, to immediately compute and determine the family pension payable to the petitioner as the widow of Late Shri Bhikhubha Prabhatsinh Gohil, in accordance with the applicable rules.

(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the respondents to fix the family pension in accordance with the pension rules applicable at the time of the death of the petitioner's husband (28.04.1972) or the rules in force at the time of computation, whichever is more beneficial to the petitioner.

(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the respondents to pay to the petitioner the full arrears of family pension from the date of death of her husband, being 28.04.1972, till the date of actual payment, along with the pension computed from that date along with interest @ 18% per annum from the 29.04.1972.

(D) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the respondents to grant the petitioner a monthly family pension as determined, to be paid regularly every month without further delay.

(E) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the respondents to process all necessary administrative formalities and complete the grant of family pension as early as possible as the petitioner is a senior citizen.

(F) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to grant costs of this petition and such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.”

3. It is case of the petitioner that the petitioner’s husband namely Bhikhubhai Prabhatsinh Gohil was appointed on a permanent post in the pay scale of Rs. 65-2-70 (Basic Pay plus Incentives) and continued to serve from 08.03.1960 till his death on 28.04.1972. Though the petitioner’s husband died in the year 1972 as stated by learned advocate Mr. Thakker for the petitioner on account of the fact that the petitioner was an illiterate lady she was unaware about her rights and therefore she could not pray for family pension and other terminal benefits. Also considering the fact that the son of the petitioner was granted compassionate appointment she did not agitate the issue about family pension or any other benefits on account of death of her husband until 2010. In the year 2010, the petitioner made a representation by way of notice given through advocate of the petitioner on 03.03.2010. However, there was no response to the aforesaid notice. Thereafter, 6 years thereafter, i.e. in the year 2016, the petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No. 8727 of 2016 before this Court wherein it was the grievance of the petitioner that though the petitioner had made a representation on 03.03.2010, there was no response to the representation about the request of the petitioner of granting pensionary benefits to her on account of her husbands death. The aforesaid petition was heard on 21.11.2025 and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while partly allowing the petition issue following directions:-

“4. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties, without much delving into the matter, at this stage, this Court would like to dispose of this petition by passing the following order and observations :

(i) The respondents herein are directed to decide the case of the petitioner in turn decide her representation