Divorcee Daughter To Be Treated Equally With Daughters Mentioned In Rule 44(5) Of MP Civil Services (Pension) Rules: Madhya Pradesh HC
The Petitioner had filed the writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging an order of the Director General, Home Guards and Civil Defence.
While directing the Authorities to consider the representation of a Government employee’s divorced daughter’s application for grant of family pension, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a divorcee daughter is also required to be treated equally with daughters mentioned in Rule 44(5) of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, otherwise it would violate rights under Article 14 of the Constitution.
The Petitioner had filed the writ petition before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging an order passed by the Director General, Home Guards and Civil Defence, Jabalpur.
The Single Bench of Justice Vishal Dhagat held, “Rule 44(5) of Rules of 1976 includes unmarried daughters, including step daughters and adopted daughters, widow daughters including step daughters and adopted daughters, unmarried sisters and widow sisters including step sisters and married daughters.Therefore, divorcee daughter is also required to be treated equally with daughters mentioned in Rule 44(5) of Rules of 1976 otherwise it would violate rights under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”
Advocate Naveen Dubey represented the petitioner while Govt. Advocate Ved Prakash Tiwari represented the State.
Factual Background
The Petitioner is a divorcee and the daughter of the District Commandant in Home Guards, who retired in the year 2001. After the death of his wife, the District Commandant filed an application to nominate his daughter for a family pension, which was rejected by the impugned order as the divorcee was not a dependent under Rule 48 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976.
Reasoning
Referring to Rule 45 of the Rules of 1976, the Bench explained that a divorcee daughter is not included in the definition of family. “However, married daughters are included in definition of family under Rule 44(5) of Rules of 1976”, it added.
The Bench was of the view that if divorced daughters are not included within the definition of family, then fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India would be violated, as there is no difference between an unmarried daughter, a married daughter or a divorcee daughter. “Married daughter is included as family member, therefore, there is no reason to exclude divorce daughter from definition of family. Since divorcee was not included in definition of family, therefore, claim of petitioner was rejected”, it stated.
The Bench further explained that as per Rule 48(5)(a) of Rules of 1976, family pension is to be granted to father, mother, eldest surviving brother below 18 years, eldest surviving unmarried sister and eldest surviving widow sister without evidence of dependency but for rest of the family members evidence is required to be furnished to show that they are dependent upon the deceased Govt. employee.
Thus, quashing the impugned order, the Bench directed the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner. “...if it is found that she is dependent upon deceased Govt. servant and is not having independent source of income then application for grant of family pension be allowed. Orders be passed by competent authority i.e. Director General Home Guard and Civil Defence within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of fresh representation….”, it ordered.
Cause Title: Smt. Jyoti Shrivastava v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (Case No.: Writ Petition No.1666 of 2022)