Mother Not Denied Family Pension Over Daughters: Bombay HC

Mother Cannot Be Denied Family Pension Because Her Married Daughters Survive: Bombay High Court

Published: 16 September 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Bombay High Court at Kolhapur allowed a mother's claim to family pension after her unmarried son died in service. The claim had been rejected because she had three surviving daughters, so the son was not the ‘only surviving child’ under Explanation I to Rule 116(16)(b)(iv) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. The Court read those words as meaning that no other child is able to support the parent, and quashed the rejection (paras 23, 25, 33-34).

Key holdings

The rejection rested solely on the mother having three surviving daughters; it was quashed (paras 20, 33-34).

‘Only surviving child’ is read in consonance with ‘wholly dependent parents’ in the Government Resolution of 22 January 2015 (paras 21, 23).

Dependent parents' right to family pension flows from the right to life with dignity under Article 21 (para 24).

Arrears of family pension are payable with simple interest at 6% per annum from the date of entitlement (para 35).

Both officers face contempt proceedings if they do not comply without delay (para 35).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The petitioner's son, a Junior Clerk in a school at Ratnagiri governed by the old pension scheme, died in service on 7 April 2020; he was unmarried (para 3). Her family pension proposal of 22 May 2023 was rejected on 18 March 2024 by the office of the Principal Accountant General because she had three surviving daughters (para 3). The State relied on Explanation I, in force from 18 January 2016, under which a ‘single’ government servant is the only surviving child of his parents (para 9). The petitioner said her daughters are married and she was wholly dependent on her son (para 8). An advocate appointed through legal aid assisted the Court (paras 5, 10).

Court's Findings

The Court held that Rule 116 must be read with the Government Resolution of 22 January 2015, so ‘dependent mother and father’ is pari materia with ‘wholly dependent parents’ (para 21). Agreeing with Vasantrao Shamrao Deshmukh v. State of Maharashtra and, through it, the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Kharak Singh Kang, it found it illogical that parents should have no right to be counted as dependants in the ‘family’ (para 22). The only-surviving-child requirement "does not stand to test at all and is required to be read down"; it means "no other child who is able to provide economic assistance to the parents" (para 23). The petitioner's married daughters could not be assumed to support her, and she would otherwise be driven to penury (para 23). The right of dependent parents to family pension emanates from the right to life with dignity under Article 21, and pension rules must meet the Article 14 test of reasonableness (para 24). Applying purposive interpretation (paras 26-27), the Court noted that Rule 117 and Rule 50 of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 contain no such exclusion (paras 28-31).

Legal Principle

Explanation I to Rule 116(16)(b)(iv) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 is a benevolent provision: ‘only surviving child’ does not exclude a wholly dependent parent merely because other children survive, but means that no other child is able to support the parent economically (paras 23, 25).

Precedents Relied Upon

Satyabhamabai Prabhunath Kale v. State of Maharashtra WP No. 6356 of 2014, decided 20.02.2018 (Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench)
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 8
Cited by the petitioner: there is no rationale for excluding the dependent mother from the definition of family for family pension.
Vasantrao Shamrao Deshmukh v. State of Maharashtra 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2133
Followed Discussed at ¶ 16, 22, 32
Pressed by the court-appointed advocate; the Court agreed with it, reproduced its paragraphs 13-15 and held that it could not adopt a different view on the family pension of dependent parents.
State of Punjab v. Kharak Singh Kang (1998) 4 SLR 594
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 22, 31
Parents who gave birth to and raised the employee cannot logically be excluded from the family as dependants; "Next to God, thy parents".

View all precedents (7)

State of Karnataka v. Appa Balu Ingale 1995 Supp (4) SCC 469
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 26
Paragraph 34 quoted on purposive interpretation by the judiciary, applied to Rule 116(16).
Shailesh Dhairyawan v. Mohan Balkrishna Lulla (2016) 3 SCC 619
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 27
Paragraphs 31-33 quoted on purposive interpretation, applied to the amended Rule 116(16).
Peoples Union of Civil Liberties v. Union of India AIR OnLine 2007 SC 1
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 32
Noted as one of the decisions referred to in paragraph 14 of Vasantrao Shamrao Deshmukh on dependent parents.
Chameli Singh v. State of UP (1996) 2 SCC 549
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 32
Noted as one of the decisions referred to in paragraph 14 of Vasantrao Shamrao Deshmukh on dependent parents.