In a significant ruling that may influence many similar disputes, the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court on Friday directed the Maharashtra government to release family pension and related benefits to the widow and children of a deceased state medical college professor.
The court rejected the rival claims made by his mother and brother, clarifying the interpretation of government resolutions on pension benefits issued between 2018 and 2023.
Background
The professor, appointed in 2009 at Swami Ramanand Teerth Rural Medical College in Ambajogai, died of a heart attack in September 2018. Because he had joined service after November 2005, his case fell under the Defined Contributory Pension Scheme (DCPS) rather than the old pension rules. Under DCPS, there is no family pension, only a lump sum for nominees.
But complications arose. A few years before his death, the professor had changed his nomination: removing his wife and replacing her name with that of his brother, while keeping his two sons as beneficiaries. At the same time, matrimonial proceedings for divorce were pending, though not concluded.
In 2018, the state issued a resolution stating that benefits of employees who died with less than 10 years service would go strictly to the nominees, unless no nomination existed. Later, in March 2023, the government brought in a fresh resolution, adopting a new policy to extend family pension under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, even to employees under DCPS, aligning with central government policy.
Court's Observations
The bench of Justices Manish Pitale and Y. G. Khobragade carefully examined the interplay of these government resolutions. The judges noted that while the professor had indeed nominated his brother in 2014, that nomination was submitted under the wrong pension framework.
"Since he was employed after November 2005, the MCSR 1982 did not apply for pensionary benefits. Thus, the nomination made cannot be considered valid under DCPS," the court observed.
On the claim that the widow should be excluded because of allegations of adultery in the divorce case, the bench was categorical:
"An allegation is not proof. Benefits could be denied only if judicial separation was granted on adultery grounds or if she was held guilty by a competent authority. Neither is the case here."
Read also:- Supreme Court Upholds High Court’s Dismissal of Compensation Plea in Alleged Road Accident Case
Further, the court emphasized that the definition of "family" under Rule 116 of MCSR 1982 clearly included the wife and dependent children but excluded parents and siblings unless very specific conditions applied. Hence, the mother and brother had no entitlement.
Decision
Allowing the writ petition, the court directed the state and its medical education department to release family pension under MCSR 1982 in favour of the widow and her two sons. The sons will be eligible till they attain majority, while the widow will continue to receive pension as the surviving spouse.
The bench also ordered arrears to be calculated from the date of death 26 September 2018 and disbursed within eight weeks. Failing that, arrears would attract interest at 9 percent per annum.
"The petitioners clearly opted for the benefit of family pension under the MCSR 1982 and deserve relief," the judges concluded, making the rule absolute.
Case Title: VVB vs State of Maharashtra
Case Number:- Writ Petition 11613 of 2019