ORDER

1. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order, dated 7.6.2022, (Annexure P/1) whereby her claim for grant of family pension has been declined by the respondent-District Pension Officer, Shivpuri.

2. The facts necessary for decision of this case are that the petitioner's father late Shri Israr Ahmed Khan was working as Hostel Superintendent at P.T.I., Industrial Training Institute, Shivpuri. He retired from service w.e.f. 31.10.1999 and was availing benefit of regular pension from the State Government till he expired on 3.12.2019. The petitioner's mother predeceased her father on 21.1.2016.

3. The petitioner submitted her claim for family pension before the respondents. The claim was rejected on the ground that she has crossed the age of 25 years and as per rule 47 of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) rules, 1976, an unmarried daughter above 25 years of age is not entitled to family pension. The petitioner, thereafter, made another application on 13.5.2022 (Annexure P/6) stating therein that she has undergone three major open heart surgeries for ASD, Valve replacement and Removal of Aortic Ridges. It was also stated that she has undergone one spine surgery and a permanent Pacemaker has been implanted for total heart blockage. It was stated that because of these surgeries, she is in total heart block condition and is not able to do her daily routine work and unable to earn her livelihood. The petitioner, therefore, requested the respondents to extend the benefit of family pension as she is physically disabled within the meaning of rule 47(6) of Pension Rules. This application of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondent District Pension Officer vide impugned communication, dated 7.6.2022, (Annexure P/1) again on the ground that since she has attained the age of 25 years, under the Pension Rules, she is not entitled to family pension. Challenging this communication, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent No.3 has completely failed to appreciate the provisions of Rule 47(6) of Pension Rules which provides for payment of family pension to a son/daughter even beyond 25 years of age in case such a son/daughter is physically disabled to the extent that he/she is not able to earn his/her livelihood. He submitted that the petitioner has undergone three major open heart surgeries in addition to one spine surgery. He also submitted that a permanent Pacemaker has been implanted to the petitioner in order to overcome the total heart blockage condition. He further submitted that the petitioner had submitted supporting medical documents alongwith her application, however, the respondent No.3 completely failed to consider the same and casually rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner has crossed the age of 25 years.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India & others v. Baba Singh reported in 2013(1) MP LJ 416. He also referred to certain provisions of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The learned counsel also submitted that since the pension rules is a beneficial piece of legislation, therefore, the provisions thereof cannot be given narrow interpretation. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned decision of the respondents is contrary to the provisions of pension rules and is liable to be set-aside.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner's application has been duly considered by the respondent-authorities. It is his submission that under rule 47(6) of Pension Rules, an unmarried daughter is entitled to family pension till she attains the age of 25 years. Since, the petitioner has already crossed the age of 25 years, she is not entitled to family pension. He also submitted that the petitioner is neither suffering from any disorder nor any disability of mind and is