The Bombay High Court's Circuit Bench at Kolhapur has held that a dependent mother of a deceased “single” government employee cannot be denied family pension solely on the ground that she has other surviving children, if those children are not in a position to provide her economic sustenance.

The Division Bench of Justice Milind N. Jadhav and Justice Nandesh S. Deshpande allowed the family pension claim of the deceased's mother, who also has three married daughters.

The Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, provide pension to parents, under Rule 116, only in cases where the deceased was a “single” government servant. The “single government servant” has been defined by Explanation to Rule 116(16) (b)(iv) as an unmarried employee who is the only surviving child of his parents.

“Explanation-I to Rule 116(16) (b)(iv) of the Pension Rules, 1982 will have to be construed as being a benevolent piece of legislation enacted for the purpose of grant of pensionary benefits to a dependent parent and the words 'only surviving child' will have to be understood and interpreted in a manner which will not exclude a dependent parent despite the said parent having 4 other children,” the Bench said.

The Court said that the Pension Rules, 1982, must be read in consonance with the Government Resolution (GR) dated January 22, 2015, wherein the term “dependent mother and father” as stated in the amended Rule 116 is reflected to be pari materia with the term “wholly dependent parents” mentioned in the GR.

“What is implied is that the term 'only surviving child' is in consonance with the term 'wholly dependent parents' and it will have to be understood as no other child who is able to provide economic assistance to the parents,” the bench observed.

In the present case, the three surviving married sisters of the deceased government servant cannot be assumed to provide sustenance to their mother, who is the petitioner in the case, the Court noted. It added that the petitioner would be driven to “penury” as she was fully dependent on the deceased employee.

“In the present case, considering that all 3 sisters of the deceased are married and admittedly Petitioner mother lived with her only son and was dependent on him, Petitioner cannot be deprived of the said statutory benefit,” the Court held.

Dependent parents' right to family pension stems from Article 21

The Court said that the right to receive family pension by the dependent parents has its genesis in the right to life with dignity guaranteed by Article 21.

“This right to receive family pension by the dependent parents emanates from the right to life with dignity guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India which encompasses more than just the right to exist as it also includes a right to live a meaningful and fulfilling life,” the Court said.

The Court noted that every executive action and legislative measure governing grant of pensionary benefits, therefore, should meet the test of reasonableness as contemplated under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Commenting on the objective of the Rules, the Bench said, “We also agree with the fact that purpose of the rules relating to family pension is to provide means of sustenance to the dependent members of the family of a deceased employee and if at any stage, the aged parent who was wholly dependent for livelihood on the deceased employee, the provision of family pension is made to help such dependent.”

The present case arose after the office of the Principal Accountant General of India Audit and Accounts Department rejected the family pension proposal of the 75-year-old petitioner. Her son, who worked as a junior clerk in a zilla parishad school at Ratnagiri, passed away in service in April 2020. He was an unmarried bachelor covered under the old pension scheme. The proposal was rejected on the ground that the deceased was not the “only surviving child” as the petitioner has three surviving daughters.

The Bench quashed the impugned communication dated March 18, 2024 by the Principal Accountant General.

The Court allowed the petition, and ordered, “We direct the competent authorities, namely, Respondent Nos.2, 4 and any other Respondent who would be required to grant approval to the family pension proposal dated 22.05.2023 of Petitioner within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a server copy of this order.”

The division bench also ordered payment of arrears of the family pension payable to the petitioner along with simple interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum from the date of its entitlement.

Case: Surekha Yashwant Pilankar vs State of Maharashtra & others,

WRIT PETITION NO. 5302 OF 2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order