Eligibility for family pension under Rule 47(6) requires disability to manifest before the age of 25; subsequent conditions do not grant entitlement.

ORDER :

Ashish Shroti, J.

Petitioner has invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order, dated 29/11/2023, (Annexure P/1), whereby, her claim for grant of family pension has been declined by the respondent/Company on the ground that she does not satisfy the requirements of circular, dated 4/2/2016, and she is not eligible for grant of family pension.

2. The facts necessary for decision of this case are that the petitioner's mother, Smt. Reeta Saxena, was working as Assistant Grade-I in M.P. Power Transmission Company Ltd. (hereinafter shall be referred to as the "Company"). She retired from service w.e.f. 30/4/2012 and started getting pension from the respondent/Company. She continued to get the pension till her death on 12/6/2022. It is worth mentioning that the petitioner's father predeceased her mother in the year 2010.

3. It is also gathered from the averments made in the writ petition that the petitioner was married on 12/6/2011 and her marriage stood dissolved on 22/11/2019. It is alleged in the writ petition that after dissolution of her marriage, the petitioner was dependent upon her mother.

4. After the death of her mother, petitioner made an application to the respondent/Company for grant of family pension on the ground that she is suffering from a mental illness namely 'Moderate Disability Mental Illness' and submitted disability certificate alongwith her application. The medical certificate is filed as Annexure P/3 alongwith the writ petition. She claimed the family pension being a disabled daughter of deceased employee under Rule 47(6) of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules,1976 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the "Pension Rules").

5. The respondent/Company considered the petitioner's claim for family pension and declined the same vide impugned communication, dated 29/11/2023, (Annexure P/1) on the ground that she does not satisfy the requirement of circular, dated 04/02/2016, (Annexure P/5). It be mentioned here that circular, dated 04/02/2016, clarified that under Rule 47(6) of Pension Rules, a son/daughter suffering disability would be entitled to pension only when such disability is suffered prior to crossing the age of 25 years. It appears from the impugned communication that earlier also the respondent/Company had declined petitioner's similar request for family pension and her making repeated applications for the same relief has been deprecated in the impugned communication.

6. Challenging the decision of the respondent/Company, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the provisions of Pension Rules are for the benefit of employees and their dependents. He submitted that even though there is age limit prescribed for grant of family pension to an unmarried daughter, however, there is no age limit prescribed so far as son/daughter of an employee suffering from any disorder or disability of mind or is physically crippled or disabled so as to render him or her unable to earn a living. Referring to proviso to Rule 47(6) of the Pension Rules, he submitted that the said provision specifically provides for grant of family pension beyond the age of 25 years. The learned counsel further submitted that by issuing circular, dated 4/2/2016 (Annexure P/5), the respondents have overreached the provision of Rule 47(6) of Pension Rules. The learned counsel also submitted that the respondents have not examined the petitioner's mental illness and no reason has been assigned in the impugned order for declining the relief to the petitioner. He thus, submits that the impugned order/communication deserves to be set aside and the petitioner is entitled to family pension.

7. On the other hand, counsel for respondent/Company supported the impugned action of the respondents and at the outset raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition having been filed through Smt. Anjana Shriv