Bombay High Court Asks State To Retrospectively Apply GO Allowing Dependent Parents To Avail Family Pension Upon Unmarried Child's Death

In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court held that the Maharashtra Government Resolution (GR) issued on January 22, 2015, which allows the parents of a 'single' or 'unmarried' son or daughter to receive family pension post the child's death, should be made applicable retrospectively to the extent that 'dependent' parents surviving on the date when the GR was issued, are granted the benefit.

A division bench of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Ashwin Bhobe granted a major relief to a septuagenarian couple, which had been fighting for their right to seek their only son's pension for survival since last 15 years. 

The relief was denied stating that their child had died before the GR was issued.

The bench in its April 25 order said, "In our view, the effect of the GR should be made applicable, at least to the dependent parent/s who is/are surviving as on the date of the said GR, notwithstanding, that the death of the 'single' son/daughter may have occurred prior to the date of the GR."

It added, "Every executive action and in particular a legislative measure like a statutory Rule governing the grant of pensionary benefits, should meet the test of reasonableness as contemplated under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Does the exclusion of the dependent parents from the definition of family, appeal to logic or reason? Would it justify rendering the dependent parents to starvation?"

Notably, the petitioners in the instant case - Vasantrao Deshmukh and his wife Snehlata, lost their only son to a snake bite on October 3, 2008. Their son, who worked in a school since June 15, 1999 died in the school premises. 

After their son's death, the Deshmukh couple approached the Project Officer, Integrated Tribal Development Project, Nashik on September 22, 2010 seeking pensionary benefits. However, by a communication on November 22, 2010, the office of the Accountant General informed the Petitioners that the biological parents of a deceased employee of the State Government, are not eligible for family pension.

The couple therefore, petitioned the High Court bench led by Justice Ghuge seeking family pension of their late son. The State, however,  pointed out that the Maharashtra Civil Services (MCS) (Pension) Rules do not permit the State to grant pension to the biological parents of a deceased employee, who was single or unmarried. 

However, the Deshmukh couple through their counsel Abhijeet Desai cited the January 2015 GR, by which the State included biological parents of 'single' government servants in the definition of 'family' thereby entitling them to the deceased employee's family pension.

"It is, thus, apparent that the State Government has taken the initiative and realising that wholly dependent parents of a 'single' Government servant would be rendered to starvation if the pension is not made available to them, the State Government, in order to achieve a laudable object and for sustaining the true spirit of social security legislation, has included the parents within the definition of 'family'," Desai argued. 

The State argued that the government is yet to decide if the January 2015 GR would be made applicable retrospectively or not. However, the bench pointed out that a coordinate bench of the High Court in the case of Vimalbai Supdu Patil v/s. State of Maharashtra had already permitted retrospective application of the said GR since in that case, a mother was denied pension of her only unmarried son, who died while in service.

The bench noted that the Accountant General's officer was unaware of the judgment of the HC in Vimalbai Supdu Patil's case and observed that had the Accountant General been aware of this fact, he would have dealt with the case of these Petitioners within the framework of the said view.

"Nevertheless, since the Government Resolution has been introduced with a purpose of giving a broader meaning to ensure that the very object of social security legislation is achieved by extending the benefits to the most deserving, that this Petition deserves to be accepted," the judges said. 

In its order, the bench observed, "We sincerely believe that if dependent parents have to keep their 'mind, body and soul' together, law must ensure that they receive pension for sustenance. The right to life with dignity, guaranteed by Article 21, encompasses more than just the right to exist; it includes the right to live a meaningful and fulfilling life. This right extends to ensuring the basic necessities, protection from exploitation and the right to make personal decisions about one's life. This right ensures access to means of sustenance and a decent and dignified standard of living which includes access to food, shelter and other essential needs."

Therefore, the bench directed that the proposal of the Petitioners shall be resubmitted by the Project Officer to the Accountant General, within 21 days and the same shall be granted by the authority within 15 days thereafter, with effect from the date of the Government Resolution.

With these observations, the bench disposed of the petition. 

Appearance: 

Advocates Abhijeet Desai, Karan Gajra, Daksha Madhav, Vijay Singh, Digvijay Kachare, Sanchita Sontakke and Mohini Rehpade appeared for the Petitioners.

Assistant Government Pleader Abhishek Bhadang represented the State.

Case Title: Vasantrao Shamrao Deshmukh vs State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition 18230 of 2024)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment