The main legal principle established in the judgment is that the entire family pension becomes payable to the widow, and the amount being paid on apportionment to the minor sons cannot be ceased on their attaining majority but should revert to the widow.

Arun Mishra, J.

1. Question involved in the writ petition is when family pension is payable and is being apportioned to three persons whether in the event of ceaser of the entitlement of one or two of them whether the amount of family pension has to be reduced proportionately; particularly when in the absence of others whose entitlement has ceased the subsisting incumbent would have obtained full family pension.

2. The facts elucidate that petitioner's husband was in the service of High Court of Madhya Pradesh and was working as Peon; he died on 31-8-1978. Petitioner claimed family pension being widow; she was asked to submit succession certificate which she obtained on 12-8-1996; petitioner was second married wife of the deceased; first wife died in the lifetime of the deceased leaving behind two sons; the marriage was performed with the petitioner after death of first wife according to the hindu rituals. After death of Girdharilal the family pension was divided in two parts; one was being paid to the petitioner and the other to the minor sons left by the first wife. Petitioner alleges that from December, 1998 she was receiving a paltry sum of Rs. 778/- as pension; the other part of the pension which was being paid to the minor sons was forfeited on their attaining the age of majority. Petitioner submits that in case of one widow without any son of the first wife; she would have obtained the amount which was being paid to her and two sons who attained majority. When the sons attained the age of majority, the amount should have been reverted back to her as it was only the apportionment of the amount of family pension which was being done; no additional pension was being paid to the minor sons.

3. Respondent No. 1 Registrar General, High Court of M. P. in the return contends that final settlement of pension and its payment is not within the domain of High Court of M. P.; it has been un-necessarily added as a party. The application of the petitioner was duly forwarded to Joint Director (Treasury, Accounts and Pension) way back on 18th February, 2000.

4. In the return respondent No. 2 contends that petitioner was granted family pension being widow of late Shri Girdharilal from December, 1988; she was receiving only Rs. 778/- as pension and the other part of the pension which was being provided to the minor sons from the first wife was stopped on their becoming major. Petitioner is not entitled to amount of pension which was being paid to the minor children of the first wife of late Shri Girdharilal. The respondent places reliance on rule 47(7) of M. P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short "the Rules of 1976") and the executive instructions issued by the State Government. At the time of death of Girdharilal as per prevailing instructions issued by the State Government 50% of the amount admissible by way of pension was given to minor sons and remaining 50% was released in favour of the petitioner.

5. It was further stipulated by the State Government that where the pension was being divided between more than one widow or their surviving minor children, then on attainment of the age of 25 years by the minor sons, payment of pension to such minor sons would be stopped, however, the said amount would not be reverted to the surviving widow. Circular Annexure R-2/A is relied on. Thus, the pension is being paid to the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Rule 47(7) of the Rules of 1976 and the executive instructions.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the family pension which was being apportioned ought to have been reverted to the petitioner and the petitioner has been wrongfully deprived of obtaining it; when the sons had attained the majority, that portion ought to have been given to the petitioner. The action is arbitrary and illegal and unconstitutional.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has contested the claim. It is submitted that action is in accordance with the rules and executive ins