The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the mere marriage of a deceased employee’s son does not render him ineligible for family pension, striking down a condition inserted by the respondent electricity company that had restricted pension benefits upon the petitioner’s marriage. Justice Ashish Shroti ruled that the discom’s order sanctioning pension only until the petitioner remained unmarried was contrary to the clear mandate of Rule 47(6) of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, which does not impose any marriage-related restriction on a son’s entitlement.
The case arose after the petitioner’s father, a retired Line Helper, died in May 2021. After the application, the authorities sanctioned a family pension, inserting a condition that the benefit would cease once he attains 25 years of age or upon his marriage, whichever is earlier. When the petitioner objected to the condition of marriage, the authorities withheld pension altogether, citing inconsistencies in his affidavit and the appearance of a woman and child in his Samagra ID, prompting the present petition.
The Court held that alleged discrepancies regarding marital status were irrelevant because the statutory rules themselves did not make marriage a disqualification for a son.
In its analysis, the Court compared Rule 47(6), which stipulates that a son is entitled to the family pension until he attains 25 years of age, with Rule 47(14)(b)(ii), which defines “family.” While the latter clause uses the word “his” in a manner that created confusion, the Court held that the substantive provision takes precedence and clearly distinguishes between sons and daughters. Marriage is a disqualifying factor only for an unmarried, widowed, or divorced daughter, not for a son. The Court reiterated that a definition clause cannot override or restrict the scope of the main enactment, citing the Supreme Court’s decisions in CIT v. Ajax Products, AIR 1965 SC 1358, and DMRC v. Tarun Pal Singh, (2018)14 SCC 161.
The Court, therefore, declared that the petitioner’s entitlement to family pension continues irrespective of marriage, subject only to the statutory limits, including attaining 25 years of age, earning a livelihood, or death. The Court directed the authorities to release arrears of family pension from 16 May 2021, along with 6% interest and to continue paying pension in accordance with the original sanction, after removing the unlawful condition.
Appearances
For Petitioner: Mr. Krishna Kartikey Sharma
For State: Mr. Sohit Mishra, GA
For Respondents 2 & 3: Mr. Rinkesh Goyal
