IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17517 of 2019 ==========================================================

SMITABEN HIRALALBHAI PARMAR Versus THE GENERAL MANAGER (FINANCE)

==========================================================

Appearance:

HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS. JIGNA B SUCHAK(7004) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR NIRAL R MEHTA(3001) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 ==========================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI and HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN Date : 03/02/2021

ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI)

1. By way of present petition, the challenge is made to the orders/communications dated 02.01.2019 and 07.01.2019 passed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 respectively whereby they rejected the request of grant of family pension to the petitioner on the ground of ineligibility.

2. The facts of the present case, in detail, are as follows: -

2.1. The father of the petitioner late Shri Hiralalbhai Parmar was working on the post of Ex-cash Overseer, City Division, Ahmedabad, who retired from his post on 28.02.2002 and he was receiving pension from Khokhra Mahemdavad Post Office

NEUTRAL CITATION

undefined

on 03.11.2006 and the father of the petitioner also passed away on 17.09.2017.

2.2. The petitioner herself got married to one Mr. Nilesh Manubhai Parmar on 17.05.1999, however due to matrimonial dispute, it was decided to take customary divorce on 03.06.2000. accordingly, mutually on the stamp paper, customarily she separated from her husband and she continued to be with her father thereafter.

2.3. On the death of her father, the petitioner filed an application on 11.11.2017 before the respondent no.2 authority to grant pension as per the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as being the divorced daughter as she would fit into the criteria of those who are eligible. However, when she went to submit the said application, she was orally informed by the respondent no.2 authority that she would have to obtain a decree of divorce from the Court of law.

2.4. According to the petitioner, when orally it was conveyed that as the divorce she has taken is by way of customary divorce in the year 2000, there is a requirement of obtaining decree of divorce from the Court of law, she by way of Family Suit No. 638

NEUTRAL CITATION

undefined

same and she was granted the decree of divorce as per mutual consent.

2.5. She thereafter once again applied for the family pension on 13.04.2018 along with the copy of writ of divorce as was required of hers, therefore on 02.01.2019 and 07.01.2019 the communications have been sent to the petitioner holding the petitioner ineligible for grant of family pension.

2.6. It is the grievance on the part of the petitioner that she is unemployed and has given no maintenance amount or permanent alimony by her husband. She has customarily divorced from the year 2000 and the approach on the part of the respondent authority is hyper technical.

2.7. Reliance is also placed on the Office Memorandum dated 19.07.2017 which states that if the divorce proceedings are stretched for the lengthy period, the grant of pension given to those applicants whose divorce proceedings are pending as on date of death of the government servant is also accepted.

3. Hence, the present petition is filed with the following prayers: -

“(a) Be pleased to admit/allow this writ petition.

NEUTRAL CITATION

undefined

other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside impugned orders/communications dated 02.01.2019 and 07.01.2019 passed by present respondent No. 1 and No. 2 Authority respectively, (c) Pending admission, hearing, and final disposal of present petition stay execution and implementation of impugned orders/communications dated 02.01.2019 and 07.01.2019 passed by present respondent authorities, (d) Be pleased to grant any other and further relief/s in the interest of justice

Click Here to Read the rest of this document