The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) allowed the writ petition, directing authorities to release family pension and benefits under the Maharashtra Civil Services Pension Rules (MCSR), 1982 in favour of the widow and sons, despite the deceased employee’s change of nomination to his brother.
The case was filed by the widow and sons of a deceased government employee, challenging non-payment of family pension and terminal benefits by authorities after the nominee was changed by the deceased to his brother during pending divorce proceedings.
The petitioners’ claim was opposed by the deceased’s mother and brother, who relied on the changed nomination. The deceased had accused the petitioner-wife of adultery and filed for divorce, but death intervened before a judicial finding. The petitioners opted for family pension under new rules and produced legal heir certificates.
The key issue was whether the deceased employee’s changed nomination in favour of his brother under the wrong pension regime (Old Pension Scheme/Ops), while actually under Defined Contributory Pension Scheme (DCPS), affects the petitioners’ right to family pension after new government resolutions.
The petitioners argued that new resolutions were beneficial and included their case, which meant that the nomination form submitted under MCSR was irrelevant as DCPS actually applied. The opponents argued that only DCPS covered the case and only nominees (including brother) should get the lump sum benefit.
The Bench comprising Justices Manish Pitale and Justice Y. G. Khobragade found that the 2023 Government Resolution granting retrospective family pension to families of employees like the deceased was applicable in the situation, not the earlier DCPS regime.
The Court cited Supreme Court authorities on the principle that statutory definition of “family” which clearly covered wife and son but not the deceased’s mother and brother, prevails over mere nomination. The Court further observed that pending divorce and unproven allegations did not disqualify the widow as “family,” since there was no judicial finding of adultery or separation.
In result, the petition was allowed, and authorities were directed to release all benefits under MCSR in favour of the petitioners, with arrears from date of death and monthly pension starting immediately. Claims of the mother and brother of the deceased were rejected, and no pending applications remained.
Cases relied on:
1. Smt. Sarbati Devi and another Vs. Smt. Usha Devi, (1984) 1 SCC 424
2. Jodh Singh Vs. Union of India and Anr., (1980) 4 SCC 306
3. Smt. Bharati wd/o Rameshrao Atole and others Vs. Smt. Bebitai Punjabrao Atole and Ors., judgment and order dated 16th October 2019 passed in Second Appeal No. 299 of 2018
4. Laxmikant Gopalkrishna Shivhare and Anr. Vs. Shriram Gopalkrishna Shivhare and Anr., judgment and order dated 11th February 2025 passed in Civil Revision Application No.80 of 2023
Appearances:
Mr. Yashodeep Deshmukh i/b Mr. Anand D. Kawre, for Petitioners.
Mr. A. R. Kale, Addl. GP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 (State authorities).
Mr. Kedar Warad a/w Mr. Sunil Warad, for Respondent Nos.5 and 6 (Brother and Mother of deceased).
