Introduction
We have experiences of fortunate, unfortunate, bitter incidents and have to face their consequences. Those may be pleasant, precious or painful depending on the circumstances, experiences and responses of our surrounding people, society. The faiths, beliefs, morals of our society would hardly be ignored, avoided, separated from the administration of government. But some time, any peculiar situation may come in such manner, fashion which gives some more strange experience and proves to its futility, deficiencies in the administrative norms of government.Now is the same, similar unfortunate experience, to widowed mother after the death of her son who was employee of Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samiti as controlled by Maharashtra Government, due to the complex interpretation of their Civil Services Rules.
Relevant legislations, Legal Provisions and precedents relied on
• Relevant Legislations and Provisions
1. The Constitution of India
2. The Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules
3. Army Regulations
• Precedents relied on
1. Kunhami v. Union of India (UOI) MANU/KE/0135/2006 : (2006 (2) KLT 661)
Brief Facts of case and discussion
• Brief Facts
1. The petitioner, mother of deceased employee of Zilla Parishad and Panchyat Samiti, challenged the validity of rejection of her claim for family pension made after death of her son. He was Gram Sevak since 3.4.1984 as permanent employee of Zilla Parishad Jalgaon and Panchayat Samiti Amalner. He died on 29.1.2007. His mother was the only Class I heir after his death as per Hindu Law hence certificate was accordingly issued by Tahasildar for pension and other pensionary benefits on 21..3.2007. On that basis, she received the amount of gratuity. She does not have any source of income and was depending on the income of her son and she lost every source of her livelihood due to the unexpected, unfortunate death of her son in his early age of life. Being the only legal heir as Class I heir and depending on the income of her deceased son, she approached to the concerned Zilla Parishad Jalgaon and Panchayat Samiti, Amalner but found response of denial. She approached to the highest authority as Maharashtra Government but the reply of rejection of her prayer regarding pension was not changed in positive.2. The reason given by all the authorities of Government for rejection of her claim of ‘Family Pension’ would seems to be very surprising for all of us, who are not aware about the relevant legal provisions, policy of Government regarding Maharashtra Civil Services Rules for different purposes. That proposal for requesting regular pension to mother of deceased was rejected on the sole ground and reason that she (mother) does not come within the definition of ‘family’ as given in Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. The glaring, burning, issue was whether mother is the part of family or not and her claim can be rejected on the ground, reason as expressed by Government.
3. A common man would always think that the ‘family’ itself starts from the foundation of mother and father, especially the importance of mother cannot be ignored at any moment. ‘Maternity is the fact and paternity is presumption’ is the well-known maxim accepted by us. We believe that there would never be the question of departing the existence of mother from ‘family’. The same was the belief of our judicial system, including judges, lawyers but that was found that their faith and belief is contrary to the provisions of Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 and not supported, therefore the rejection of proposal of mother can hardly be faulted on this ground and reason technically considering that situation. Hence the question was whether the faith, belief based on the morals of our society in the light of aim and object of the benevolent legislation would prevail or the technical interpretation of legislation in mechanical manner would prevail?
4. The submissions made by the advocate on her behalf that the concept of ‘family pension’ is to be considered and interpreted as that is the outcome of beneficial legislation. In Family Pension Scheme 1950 the members of the ‘family’ of deceased Government servant were expressed as father, if father is not alive then mother was considered as member of family. As per Extra Ordinary Family Pension Scheme as per Family Pension Rule, 1982 family pension can be awarded to the mother depending upon the deceased employee of Government. However under the same circumstances as per provisions of Family Pension Scheme, 1964 the mother of the deceased employee has been denied such relief by not including her in the term ‘family’ as given in the relevant clause. Her right to get the pension after the death of her son who was the employee of Maharashtra Government was denied. This amounts to discrimination under Article 14 of The Constitution of India.
5. In the Army Regulations of our country and other regulations related to Central Government, the mother is considered for ‘Family Pension’. The Government Resolution of Maharashtra, Department of Finance dated 22.1.2015 that was also considered subsequently this situation and expressed that in absence of the relations of deceased employee having preferential right to get family pension. She cannot be subjected to discrimination by refusing to grant family pension in view of Government Resolution. The Government Pleader resisted the claim and submissions made by the petitioner, mother of deceased employee as she does not come in the definition of ‘family’ relevant for the consideration of pensionary benefits, though there is no dispute about the relationship with deceased employee.
• Discussion
1. The submissions of both parties were considered by court, on factual aspect there was no dispute amongst the parties of petition. There is no disagreement or dispute that The Pension Rule is the benevolent provision framed with the aim and object of extending financial assistance to the eligible member of the family of the deceased employee depending on him, who is put to suffer the great hardship after the demise of the sole earning member of the family. Consequent such benevolent provisions have to be interpreted liberally so as to achieve the object behind framing such provisions.2. The Rule 117(1) are applicable to Government Servant who was in service on 31.12.1963 and had specifically opted for the scheme of Family Pension, 1950 admissible under revised Pension Rules, 1950 of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959 as amended from time to time. Rule 62(8) of Pension Rules defines Extra Ordinary Family Pension which is granted to the family of deceased Government servant. In both, the term ‘family’ includes ‘mother’ of deceased Government servant. She is entitled to get family pension in case she is wholly depending on the deceased Government servant for support and no other member of the family of the deceased Government servant, who is vested with prior right to receive family pension than the mother, is surviving. However, ‘mother’ has been excluded from the definition of ‘family’ in the Family Pension Scheme, 1964 enumerated in Rule 116 of Pension Rules.
3. There is absolutely no rationale or justification behind excluding the mother from the definition of ‘family’ in the Family Pension Scheme, 1964. The mother of the deceased Government servant, who is otherwise entitled to receive family pension under the Family Pension Scheme, 1950 or under Extra Ordinary Family Pension Scheme (Appendix IV), thus has been discriminated by denying the same right to receive family pension vide Rule 116 of Pension Rules.
4. The denial of right to the mother of deceased Government Servant to receive family pension under Family Pension Scheme 1964 (Rule 116) amounts to discrimination and as such would infringe the fundamental right to equality as enshrined in Art. 14 of the Constitution of India.
5. The reference may be made to GR no. PEN 2011 / CR54/Seva-4, dated 22nd January, 2015 published by Government of Maharashtra, Finance Department whereby ‘mother’ who is wholly dependent on him, has been held to be entitled to get family pension if other family members of the deceased Government servant, who have a prior right to receive family pension, are not surviving. It is applicable to Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samities Act, 1961. In the introduction part of GR, it is stated that since the definition of the term ‘family’ under existing Pension Rules does not cover parents of a Government servant, as a social security measure the scope of the term ‘family’ defined under Pension Rules has to be enlarged restrictively by amending the Rules suitablely to include into its ambit the wholly dependent parents of a single Government servant. Formal amendment to the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 will be made in due course. It fortifies that there was no rationale or justification in excluding the parents of the deceased Government servant from the term ‘family’ as given in Family Pension Scheme, 1964.
Conclusion and importance of case
• Conclusion1. The denial of right to the mother of deceased Government Servant to receive family pension under Family Pension Scheme 1964 (Rule 116) amounts to discrimination and as such would infringe the fundamental right to equality as enshrined in Art. 14 of the Constitution of India.
2. Therefore the decision in denying family pension, who is the only surviving family member of deceased, who is stated to be wholly dependent on him for livelihood, is not sustainable since it has the effect of discriminating the petitioner and depriving her of the fundamental right to equality as enshrined in Art. 14 of the Constitution of India.
• Importance
There are several mothers who are facing the unfortunate, unwanted situation and facing the bitter consequences after the death of their son. They do not have the shelter and assistance of their husband to have some participation to face the difficulties for their livelihood. The aim and object of the Law of Pension is always to support the financial assistance in the uneven war between the financial crisis and her day-to-day of pitiable position of starvation.
Irrespective of any provisions or interpretation, the administration is always strict that should be while interpreting the Rules, Regulations and Policy of Government. The interpretation is generally made in favour of Government by the administration which is rather expected that create the non-returnable way of possibility of getting pension for the needy heirs of deceased employee.
This interpretation made by Hon. High Court Bombay considering rights and unfair discrimination which is contrary to our Constitution hence declared to be not consistent to our Constitution. That has awarded the right to get the regular pension to the mother of all deceased employee of Government and they would not be worry that their mother would face any difficulty or put in pitiable position after their unfortunate death.
This article is mostly on the basis of the judgment and order given by Hon. High Court Bombay Bench Aurangabad in Vimalbai Supdu Patil Vs State of Maharashtra and others in 2016(4) ABR 664 = 2017(1) Bom CR 207 = 2016(6) Mah LJ 191 = MANU / MH / 1558 / 2016.
