1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1097 OF 1999 Jamilabee W/o Wazir Khan .... PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Oths. .... RESPONDENTS Ms. Surekha Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.G.Patil, Assistant Govt. Pleader for State. ............................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE: 09/08/2010 ORDER ORDER : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner claims family pension. 2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner’s father was getting pension since he was working in the erst-while Hyderabad Govt. It is submitted that however on his death, the mother of the petitioner did not take any steps to make the family pension applicable. It is only after the 2 death of the petitioner’s mother, she also was entitled for the family pension on account of pensionable services of her deceased father. 3. Miss. Mahajan, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the definition of the family would also include the widowed daughter. 4. The petitioner is admittedly a married daughter of her deceased father. The petitioner at the most would be entitled to be considered as dependent of her deceased husband and not the deceased father. We are not inclined to accept such a wide interpretation which is given to the definition of the family. 5. There is no merit in the petition. The petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] [ B.R. GAVAI ] JUDGE JUDGE knp/WP 1097.99 3