Balod, Chhattisgarh v. 1. State Of Chhattisgarh3 Through The Secretay, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan
Case Details
1 SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.09.03 17:56:56 +0530 2025:CGHC:44443 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7723 of 2022 Smt. Yogita Chadhar W/o Late Chandrashekhar Chadhar Aged About 48 Years R/o Ward No. 16 Shikaripara Balod, Tahsil And, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh3 Through The Secretay, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Director Of Public Instructions School Eduction Department, Indrawati Bhavan, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Joint Director School Education Department Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4. District Education Officer Balod, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 5. Director Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Department, Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 7891 of 2022
Legal Reasoning
Smt. Tileshwari Parteti W/o Late Ganpat Lal Parteti Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Ranakhujji Post Sanjari, Tahsil Dondi, District Balod (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2. Director Of Public Instructions School Education Department, Indrawati Bhavan, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3. Joint Director School Education Department Durg District Durg (C.G.) 2 4. District Education Officer Balod District Balod (C.G.) 5. Director Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Department, Durg, Distt. Durg (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 7894 of 2022 Smt. Chitrekha Sahu W/o Late Ramesh Kumar Sahu Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Khairtarai Post-Bghamara, Tahsil And District Balod Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Director Of Police Instructions, School Education Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. Joint Director, School Education Department Durg District - Durg Chhattisgarh. 4. District Education Officer, Balod District Balod Chhattisgarh. 5. Director, Treasury, Account And Pension, Department, Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Petitioners For State : Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate : Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 01. 09.2025 1. The above captioned Writ Petitions involve common questions of law and facts; therefore, these petitions have been heard together and are being
Decision
disposed of by this common order. 2. By way of these petitions, the petitioners have sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 This Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to call for entire Records from the office of the respondents in respect of Petitioners claim. 10.2 The court may kindly be pleased to direct the 3 Respondents to grant family pension, gratuity and all death cum retired benefit to petitioner from date of entitlement with interest. 10.3 That, any other Writ, order or which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit may kindly be passed in favor of the petitioner.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the husbands of the respective petitioners were working on the post of Shiksha Karmis. He would further submit that date of appointment, regularization, absorption and death of husbands of the petitioners are as follows :- Sr. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. Husband of Yogita Chadhar Husband of Tileshwari Parteti Husband of Chitrekha Sahu 30.06.2009 06.10.2008 29.08.2008 04.06.2013 20.10.2011 11.10.2011 Date of Appointment Date of regularization Date of absorption 10.08.2018 10.08.2018 10.08.2018 Date of Death 21.06.2019 29.04.2019 23.02.2019 4. Mr. Kesharwani would submit that the claims of the petitioners with regard to terminal benefits were referred to the District Education Officer for necessary direction by the Office of Divisional Joint Director, Treasury, Account and Pension on 29.12.2022, but till date no decision has been taken. He would further submit that according to provisions of Rule 47(2) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred as “Rules, 1976”), the petitioners are entitled for family pension. He would also submit that appropriate direction may be issued to the respondents in this regard. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would submit that according to the provisions of Rule 47(3) of the Rules, 1976, the petitioners are not entitled for family pension as there 4 husbands were working on the post of Teachers under the respondent and they did not complete 7 years of regular services. He would contend that these petitions deserve to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 7. Rule 47(3) of Rules, 1976 reads as under :- “47(3) (a) 2[Where a Government servant), who is not governed by the Workman's Compensation Act, 1923 (No. 8 of 1923), dies while in service after having rendered not less than seven years continuous service, the rate of family pension payable to the family shall be equal to 50 per cent of the pay last drawn or twice the family pension admissible under sub-rule (2), whichever is less, and the amount so admissible shall be payable from the date following the date of death of the Government servant :- (i) for a period of seven years; or (ii) up to the date on which the deceased Government servant would have attained the age of 65 years had he survived, whichever period is less. (b) [Where a Government servant] who is not governed by the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (No. 8 of 1923) dies after retirement after having rendered not less than seven years continuous service, the rate of family pension payable to the family shall be equal to 50 per cent of the pay last drawn by the pensioner before retirement or twice the family pension admissible under sub-rule (2), whichever is less, and the amount so admissible shall be payable from the date following the date of death of the pensioner:- (i) for a period of seven years; or (ii) till the date on which the pensioner would have reached the age of 65 years had he remained alive, whichever period is shorter: 5 Provided that the amount of family pension shall not exceed the pension sanctioned to the Government servant at the time of retirement. In cases where the amount of family pension as admissible under clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of this rule exceeds the pension sanctioned at the time of retirement, the amount of family pension sanctioned under this sub-rule shall not be less than that amount. The term 'pension sanctioned at the time of retirement' shall mean 'the pension inclusive of the part of the pension which the retired Government servant may have commuted before death." (c) (i) Where a Government servant who is governed by the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (No. 8 of 1923) dies while in service after having rendered not less than seven years continuous service, the rate of family pension payable to the family shall be equal to 50 per cent of the pay last drawn or one and a half times the family pension admissible under sub-rule (2) whichever is less. (ii) Where a Government servant who is governed by the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (No. 8 of 1923) dies after retirement after having rendered not less than seven years continuous service, the rate of family pension payable to the family shall be equal to 50 per cent of pay last drawn by the Government servant or one and half times the family pension admissible under sub-rule (2), whichever is less. (iii) The family pension so determined under sub-clause (i) or (ii) shall be payable for the period mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b) as the case may be: Provided that where a compensation is not payable under the aforesaid Act, the Head of Office shall issue a certificate to the Audit Officer to the effect that the family of the deceased Government servant is not eligible for any compensation under the aforesaid Act and the family shall be paid family pension on the scale and for the period mentioned in clause (a). (d) After the expiry of the period referred to in clause (a) or (b), the family, in receipt of family pension under those clauses or clause (c), shall be entitled to family pension at the rate admissible under sub-rule (2).” 8. Bare reading of the rule would make it clear that it deals with quantum of the family pension and it does not speak about entitlement of family 6 pension. 9. Rule 47(2) of Rules, 1976 reads as under :- “47(2) [Without prejudice] to the provisions contained in sub- rule (3), where a Government servant dies- [(a) while in service provided he had been medically examined and found fit for appointment under the Government] (b) after retirement from service and was on the date of death in receipt of a pension or compassionate allowance, referred to in Chapter V [x x x) on the date of death. the family of the deceased shall be entitled to a contributory family pension (hereinafter in this rule referred to as Family Pension) the amount of which shall be determined as follows:- Pay of Government servant Amount of monthly family pension (1) (2) (i) Below Rs. 400. (ii) Rs. 400 and above but not exceeding Rs. 1200. (iii) Above Rs. 1200. 30 per cent of pay subject to a minimum of Rs. 60 and amaximum of Rs. 100. 15 per cent of pay subject to a minimum of Rs. 100 and amaximum of Rs. 160. 12 per cent of pay subject to a minimum of Rs. 160 and a maximum of Rs. 250. 10. Considering the facts of the present case and the provisions contend in Rule 47(2) of the Rules, 1976, it is ample clear that husbands of the respective petitioners were working on the post of Shiskha Karmis under the respondent authorities and they worked for more than 10 years; therefore, in my opinion petitioners are entitled for family pension. The 7 respondent authorities are directed to consider the claim of the petitioners for grant of family pension expeditiously, preferably within a period of 90 days and make payment of arrears too. 11. With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), these petitions are hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant