Executive instructions cannot override statutory rules, and disabled children are entitled to family pension under Rule 47(6) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976.

1. The petitioner before this Court, who is aged about 85 years, is a pensioner of the State of Madhya Pradesh and is aggrieved by order dated 11/01/2017 passed by District Education Officer, Ujjain by which the claim of the petitioner for grant of family pension after her death to her disabled daughter, has been rejected.

2. The facts of the case reveal that the petitioner was an Assistant Teacher in the School Education Department. She has worked from 02/07/1968 till 31/12/1992 and she is receiving regular pension. The aforesaid facts are undisputed facts. The petitioner is having unmarried disabled daughter aged about 64 years and as unmarried disabled daughter is not able to earn her livelihood, the petitioner being a widow mother has submitted an application under Rules 47 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 for including the name of her daughter for grant of family pension after her death. She has submitted an application in the prescribed format (Annexure-P/6) on

3. Undisputedly, there was again a certificate issued by the State Medical Board which is also on record (Annexure-P/7) wherein the total disability in respect of the daughter of the petitioner is 70% approximately. She is completely blind and mentally retarded person with moderate loco motor disability. The certificate has been issued by the District Hospital (under Rule 4 of the Rules framed under The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995). Not only this, even the Head of the Department and Professor of Department of Psychiatry, R.D. Gardi Medical College, Ujjain has given a certificate certifying the disability as 69% and again it has been certified that the girl in question is mentally retarded.

4. The Block Education Officer Ujjain, Education Department has recommended the case of the petitioner for grant of family pension to the daughter of the petitioner after the death of the petitioner and he has verified all the certificates submitted by the petitioner. Inspite of the repeated representation to the authorities, as nothing was done, the petitioner was forced to file a writ petition and the same was registered as WP No.7371/2016(S) and this Court by an order dated 03/11/2016 has directed the respondents to pass a final order in respect of the petitioner’s claim.

5. The District Education Officer, Ujjain has rejected the claim of the petitioner based upon some executive instructions issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh dated 04/02/2016 and the reason assigned in the rejection order is that no certificate has been filed to establish that the girl in question has acquired disability before completing the age of 25 years.

6. The petitioner has again submitted a representation and the respondents have not accepted the claim of the petitioner and in those circumstances, the present petition has been filed.

7. A detailed and exhaustive reply has been filed by the State Government and it has been argued before this Court that the petitioner is certainly a pensioner and petitioner’s daughter is certainly a disabled daughter having 69% disability. The respondents have stated that the petitioner has not established that the daughter of the petitioner has acquired disability prior to completion of the age 25 years, and therefore, once the aforesaid fact has not been established before the authorities, they have rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner vide impugned order

8. The respondents have further stated that in light of the circular issued by the State Government read with Rule 47 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, no case for interference is made out in the matter.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record and the matter is being disposed of at motion hearing stage itself with the consent of the parties.

10. Undisputedly, the petitioner before this Court is a retired pensioner aged about 85 years. It is again undisputed fac