MP Civil Service Pension Rules | Marriage Of Deceased Employee's Son Doesn't Make Him Ineligible For Family Pension: High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the marriage of a deceased employee's son does not disentitle him from receiving family pension under the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, until he turns 25 years old or starts earning or dies whichever is earlier. 

The bench of Justice Ashish Shroti observed; 

"mere marriage of petitioner, i.e. the son of deceased employee, would not render him ineligible for family pension. He is entitled to get family pension till he attains the age of 25 years or till he starts earning or till his death, whichever is earlier". 

The petitioner's father was employed as a Line Helper in the office of the Deputy Manager, Division Mungaoli. After his father's retirement, he drew a pension from June 1, 2018, until his death on May 15, 2021. After the father's death, the petitioner made an application for the grant of family pension. 

After submitting the succession certification, the company (respondent no 2) passed the impugned order dated August 9, 2023, sanctioning family pension from the period of May 16, 2021, to February 2, 2026. The family pension was sanctioned to the petitioner up to the date he attains the age of 25 years or his marriage or death, whichever is earlier. 

Aggrieved by the condition of marriage, the petitioner submitted a representation before the Company, but no response was provided. Therefore, the petitioner approached the High Court. 

The counsel for the petitioner argued that the payment of family pension to the deceased's son was governed by Rules of 1976. It was contended that the Rules of 1976 do not provide that upon a son's marriage, he would not be entitled to a family pension as such condition de hors the provision of Rule 47(6).

The counsel for the Company submitted that Rule 47(14)(b)(ii) provided that upon marriage of the son, he would not be entitled to family pension. It was argued that the petition failed to disclose the factum of marriage in his petition and therefore did not approach the court with clean hands. 

The court rejected the company's contention regarding the petition not disclosing his marriage status, noting that if the rules provide that upon marriage, the son is entitled to a family pension. Therefore, furnishing incorrect information in the affidavit would not be a relevant factor for the petitioner's right to get a family pension. 

For context, Rule 47(6) states that the period for which family pension is payable shall be as follows:-
(i) in the case of a widow or widower, up to the date of death or remarriage, whichever is earlier;
(ii) in the case of a son, until he attains the age of 25 years; and
(iii) in the case of an unmarried daughter, until she attains the age of 24 years or until she gets married, whichever is earlier.

The court, reading clause (ii) of subrule 6 of Rule 47, observed that a son would be entitled to a family pension until he attains the age of 25 years. The court noted that the marriage status of the son was not a criterion for the grant of a family pension.

The court further relied on the explanation to subrule 6 to Rule 47, which clarified that the marriage criteria are applicable only for a daughter and not for a son. 

"However, when read with Rule 47(6) which is the substantive provision providing for period of payment of family pension and as also the opening words of even clause (b)(ii) of sub-rule 14 of Rule 47 which states "son or an unmarried or widowed or divorced daughter till such son or daughter attains the age of twenty five years", it becomes evident that the condition of marriage is not attracted in case of a son", the bench clarified. 

The bench, adopting a harmonious construction, highlighted that the mere marriage of the deceased employee's son would not render him ineligible for family pension till he attains the age of 25 years or until his death, whichever is earlier. 

Therefore, the bench directed; 

"It is, therefore, declared that the petitioner would be entitled to family pension till he attains the age of 25 years or till he starts earning or death, whichever is earlier. The respondents are accordingly directed to disburse the amount of arrears of family pension to the petitioner w.e.f. 16.05.2021 till date and continue to pay him family pension as sanctioned vide order, dated 09.08.2023. He would also be entitled for the interest @ of 6 % per annum on the aforesaid amount of arrears, which shall be paid to him within a period of 90 days from the date of submission of certified copy of this order". 

Accordingly, the petition was disposed of. 

Case Title: Neeraj Kewat v State of Madhya Pradesh [writ petition 10766 of 2024]

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 263

For Petitioner: Advocate Krishna Kartikey Sharma

For State: Government Advocate Sohit Mishra

For Company: Advocate Rinkesh Goyal

Click here to read/download the Order