Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Vivek Jain, J.
Rajat @ Ronak v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Writ Petition No. 6128 of 2023 (Jabalpur); Decided on 16.7.2025
(1) Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 -- Ss. 4 and 6 -- gratuity is estate of deceased -- husband excluded by Will of deceased government servant -- Will duly proved before civil Court -- petitioner son be paid 100% of gratuity immediately. [Para 7]
(2) Constitution of India -- is will of the people -- statutory laws are creatures of Legislators -- will of people has to prevail over everything else, which is the superior power in our Constitutional scheme -- in case of conflict with fundamental rights, State law is null and void to that extent, and has to be declared so. (1993) 4 SCC 441 followed. [Paras 23 & 24]
(3) Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (M.P.) -- R. 47 -- Constitution of India -- Arts. 21A and 13 -- entitlement to family pension -- widower/respondent No. 4 estranged from deceased government servant -- petitioner minor son suffering 50% disability was living with separated mother/deceased government servant -- Will of deceased, duly proved in civil Court, clearly mentions that petitioner shall have sole right to receive pension -- Will has to be respected so as to protect Constitutional and fundamental rights of minor petitioner -- this is also as per provisions engrafted by Central Government in Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021 -- liberty granted to petitioner to challenge vires of relevant portion of R. 47 to the extent it grants right to respondent No. 4 and to have it brought in tune with Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021 as amended on 1.1.2024 -- petitioner shall be paid 50% of family pension -- remaining 50% to be kept in fixed deposit, subject to orders of Court hearing challenge to vires -- if no challenge is made within three months, it shall be paid to respondent No. 4 -- petitioner will get family pension till age of 25 years -- if he is unable to earn livelihood even after that on account of physical disability, he would be liberty to seek continuation of family pension as per R. 47(6) -- if family pension is continued to petitioner beyond age of 25 years, arrangement as provided above shall apply. 2008 (2) MPLJ 321 referred to. [Paras 26 & 27]
¼1½ minku lank; vf/kfu;e] 1972 & /kkjk 4 rFkk 6 & minku e`rd dh laink gksrk gS & e`r ljdkjh lsfodk dh foy }kjk ifr vioftr & foy flfoy U;k;ky; ds le{k lE;d~:is.k lkfcr & ;kph iq= dks 100 Áfr'kr minku vfoyac lanÙk fd;k tk,A ¼iSjk 7½
¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & turk dh bPNk gS & dkuwuh fof/k;‚a fo/kk;dksa dh —fr gksrh gaS & turk dh bPNk vU; lc dqN ij vfHkHkkoh gksuk gksrh gS] og gekjh lkafo/kkfud ;kstuk esa mÙkerj 'kfä gS & ewy vf/kdkjksa ls }a} dh n'kk esa] jkT; fof/k ml lhek rd v—r vkSj 'kwU; gksrh gS] rFkk mls ,slk ?kksf"kr fd;k tkuk gksrk gSA ¼1993½ 4 ,llhlh 441 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 23 ,oa 24½
¼3½ flfoy lsok ¼isU'ku½ fu;e] 1976 ¼eŒÁŒ½ & fuŒ47 & Hkkjr dk lafoèkku & vuqPNsn 21d rFkk 13 & dqVqac isU'ku dh gdnkjh & fo/kqj@çR;FkhZ Øekad 4 e`r ljdkjh lsfodk ls foyx & 50 Áfr'kr fu%'kärk ls xzLr ;kph vo;Ld iq= i`Fkd~ jg jgh ekrk@e`r ljdkjh lsfodk ds lkFk fuokljr Fkk & flfoy U;k;ky; esa lE;d~:is.k lkfcr e`rdk dh foy esa Li"V mYys[k fd ;kph dks isU'ku çkIr djus dk ,dkf/kdkj gksxk & vo;Ld ;kph ds lkafo/kkfud vkSj ewy vf/kdkjksa dh lqj{kk ds fy, foy dk vknj fd;k tkuk gksxk & ;g dsaæ ljdkj }kjk dsaæh; flfoy lsok ¼isU'ku½ fu;e] 2021 esa tksM+s x, mica/kksa ds vuq:i Hkh gS & ;kph dks fuŒ 47 ds lqlaxr va'k dh 'kfäeÙkk ij] ftl lhek og rd çR;FkhZ Øekad 4 dks vf/kdkj çnku djrk gS] vk{ksi djus rFkk mls 1-1-2024 dks ;Fkk la'kksf/kr dsaæh; flfoy lsok ¼isU'ku½ fu;e] 2021 ds vuq:i djokus dh Lora=rk nh xbZ & ;kph dks dqVqac isU'ku dk 50 Áfr'kr lanÙk fd;k tk, & 'ks"k 50 Áfr'kr 'kfäeÙkk ij vk{ksi dh lquokbZ djus okys U;k;ky; ds vkns'kksa ds v/;/khu] lkof/k fu{ksi esa j[kk tk, & rhu ekl ds Hkhrj vk{ksi ugha fd;k tk, rks og çR;FkhZ Øekad 4 dks lanÙk dj fn;k tk, & ;kph 25 o"kZ dh o; rd dqVqac isU'ku çkIr djsxk & ;fn 'kkjhfjd fu%'kärk ds dkj.k og mlds i'pkr~ Hkh vkthfodk dk miktZu djus esa vleFkZ gks rks og fuŒ 47¼6½ ds vuqlkj dqVqac isU'ku tkjh j[kus dh bZIlk djus ds fy, Lora= gksxk & ;kph dks dqVqac isU'ku 25 o"kZ dh o; ds mijkar tkjh j[kh tkrh gS rks Åij nh xbZ O;oLFkk ykxw gksxhA 2008 ¼2½ ,eih,yts 321 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 26 ,oa 27½
ORDER
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed a direction to the respondents for payment of pension and gratuity. The immediate cause of action is the legal heirship certificate dated 5.7.2022 issued by the Additional Collector in favour of the petitioner as well as the respondent No.4.
2. The petitioner is a 15 year old minor son of deceased government servant namely Smt. Kamini Luniya, who has expired on 10.4.2021 while in service. The dispute has arisen because the petitioner is living with his maternal uncle and is living separately from his father, who is impleaded as respondent No.4. Therefore, it is curious and unique case of a real father and son contesting for pensionary dues of deceased wife and mother respectively.
3. This Court vide order dated 9.7.2015 had directed the petitioner, his guardian or any other authorized family member so also the respondent No.4 to remain personally present before this Court. Today the petitioner Rajat @ Ronak is present along with Shri Rajendra Kumar s/o Parusram Luniya, who is his maternal uncle. The respondent No.4 - Rahul Kaushal, who is father of the petitioner is also present in Court.
4. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner along with his mother was residing away from his father since around year 2019 and he has not resided with his father since then. His mother expired in the year 2021 during second wave of Covid-19 pandemic and the petitioner since 2019 is not in company of his father and is residing with his maternal uncles. Today the petitioner present in person has stated before this Court that he is comfortably living with his maternal uncles and he has no problem there and was uneasy with the proposition of going to reside with his father, though his father offered to take him and take good care of the petitioner. It appeared to this Court that because the petitioner is living away from father since last more than six years even during the lifetime of his mother, and as stated by him, he has been witness to the verbal and physical harassment meted out by his father to his mother, it appeared to this Court that the emotional bond between father and son has broken down. As the parties mutually submitted that the respondent No.4 (father) has instituted a case for getting custody of the petitioner before the competent Court, therefore, this Court refrainsfrom commenting further on the issue.
5. The deceased mother of petitioner has left behind her only two Class-I legal heirs, i.e. the petitioner and respondent No.4 and it is undisputed position that the petitioner had filed a suit against the respondent No.4 based upon a will executed in his favour by his mother to the exclusion of respondent No.4. The said will has been proved in Civil Suit No.86-A/21 by the Court of Second Civil Judge, Junior Division, Aashta, District Sehore (M.P.) vide judgement and decree dated 28.8.2024. Undisputedly, his Civil Appeal under section 96 is pending before the concerned Appellate Court and therefore, this issue need not be dilated further.
6. All the other retiral benefits except gratuity and family pension have already been paid to the petitioner and are in a fixed deposit till the petitioner attains majority. The adjudication of these dues is not the subject matter before this Court, and may depend as per the judgment to be delivered by the appellate Court wherein the validity of will as upheld by the Civil Court vide judgement and decree dated 28.8.2024 passed in RCSA No. 86/2021, decided by IInd Civil Judge Junior Division, Ashta, Distt. Sehore (MP) has been challenged.Therefore, this Court restricts itself to be question of family pension and gratuity.
Gratuity
7. So far as Gratuity is concerned, it is estate of the deceased and has to be paid to the Class-I heirs, and in their absence, to the Class-II heirs. As the respondent No.4 has been excluded by will of the deceased Government servant and will has been duly proved before the Civil Court, it will be proper
The entitlement of a divorced daughter to a share of the family pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and relevant office memorandums.
Family pension claims cannot be contingent on a testamentary disposition; entitlement is based on recognized marital status and official dependency designations, without requiring succession certific....
The entitlement of an unmarried daughter to death gratuity and family pension under the Pension Rules, 2021, when other family members cease to be eligible.
Point of la w: scheme of payment of pension in the order of priority to the members of the family is framed by the legislature keeping in mind the overall welfare of the family of deceased government....
Family pension eligibility is determined strictly by birth order among dependents, not by relinquishment rights.
The right to receive family pension under statutory provisions is in the nature of property and cannot be denied without due process of law. Administrative actions affecting parties must adhere to pr....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
