IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI

th

ON THE 10 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 34823 of 2025 SMT. RENU SHARMA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Upendra Yadav - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Dharmendra Nayak - Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.

ORDER The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated

26.03.2025, Annexure P/1, passed by respondent no.3, asking the petitioner to submit succession certificate for payment of retiral dues and family pension in relation to her deceased-husband. She has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to extend her the benefit of family pension and other retiral dues of her husband.

2. The petitioner is the widow of Late Shri Ashok Sharma, who was working as Constable in the respondent - Home (Police) Department. He expired on 31.01.2025. The petitioner made an application for disbursement of retiral dues as also family pension in her favour before respondent no.3. Her application was however rejected by respondent no.3 vide impugned communication dated 26.03.2025 on the ground that the respondent no.5 is also claiming to be the widow of deceased employee and in view of this dispute, she should produce the succession certificate issued by the competent court. The petitioner then represented before respondent no.2.

However, as no response was received, she filed the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the fact that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of Late Shri Ashok Sharma is not in dispute. He further submitted that during the lifetime of Shri Sharma, he has submitted necessary nomination in favour of the petitioner and has also nominated her as his wife for purposes of family pension. As per his submission, asking the petitioner to obtain succession certificate is highly arbitrary and illegal. He also submitted that the respondent no.5 was never married to Shri Sharma. Further, even if she is presumed to have married Shri Sharma, since the first marriage of Shri Sharma with the petitioner was admittedly subsisting, the subsequent marriage with respondent no.5 is illegal and has no sanctity in law. He thus submitted that based upon the nomination made in her favour, the petitioner is entitled to get the amount of retiral dues of her husband and also for payment of family pension.

4. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate supported the impugned action of the respondents and submitted that respondent no.5 is also claiming to be the widow of the deceased-employee. It is his submission that the respondent-department is under legal obligation to disburse the amount of retiral dues, including family pension of an employee, to his legal heir and in view of the pending dispute between the petitioner and respondent no.5, the respondents were justified in asking both of them to obtain and submit succession certificate. Learned counsel thus submits that no indulgence is warranted in favour of the petitioner in this petition.

5. None appeared for respondent no.5 even though served.

6. Considered the arguments and perused the records.

7. Rule 46 of the Pension Rules provides for nomination by a Govt.

servant in Form 1/Form 2 conferring on one or more persons the right to receive the death-cum-retiral dues payable under Rule 44(2)(1)(b) of the Pension Rules. Further, as per clause (i) of proviso to Rule 46(1), the nomination shall not be in favour of any person other than the family member. The purpose of making nomination is to ensure that in the event of death of employee, the amount is disbursed to the nominee irrespective of any dispute inter-se between the nominee and/or any other person. Thus, when there is a nomination in favour of the petitioner, respondent no.3 ought to have disbursed the amount of retiral dues of the deceased-employee in favour of the petitioner instead of directing her to obtain the succession certificate.

8. Further