1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3754 OF 2009 Smt.Shashikalabai w/o Dadarao Jadhav .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Shri D.R.Irale Patil, Advocate for petitioner Shri K.G.Patil, AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2 Shri U.B.Bondar, Advocate for respondent No.3 CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND R.K.DESHPANDE, JJ DATE : 23rd JUNE, 2009 PER COURT : 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner – widow of late Dadarao Jadhav who died on 10.6.1968 seeks for quashing of an order passed by the respondents declining to grant family pension to the petitioner. 2. Undisputedly, husband of the petitioner came to be appointed as a Gramsevak by an order dated 9.12.1967. The 2 husband of the petitioner accordingly joined his duties on 21.12.1967 and unfortunately while performing his duties died on 10.6.1968. The petitioner who is a hapless widow of deceased Dadarao applied for grant of family pension and though the claim for family pension was recommended by the two Zilla Parishads, the respondents declined to grant family pension as the statutory provisions came in the way of the petitioner for being granted the family pension. We may at this juncture usefully refer to the provisions of Rule 116 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules dealing with the entitlement for family pension. Rule 116 (2) of the said Rules reads as follows : “116.Family Pension, 1964 (2) Without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-rule (4), where a Government servant dies - (a) after completion of one year of continuous service, or (b) before completion of one year continuous service provided the deceased Government servant concerned immediately prior to his appointment to the service or post was examined by the appropriate medical authority and declared fit by that authority for Government service ; or (c) after retirement from service and was, in receipt of pension on the date of death.” 3 The case of the petitioner for grant of family pension would obviously not fall under Clause (a) of sub-rule 2 which speaks about grant of family pension where the Government servant who has died after completion of one year of continuous service. The case of the petitioner for grant of family pension may be considered under Clause (b) of sub-rule 2 which contemplates grant of family pension though the Government servant may not have completed one year of continuous service. The proviso which is added to this sub-rule is that the Government servant immediately prior to his appointment to the service or post was examined by appropriate medical authorities and was declared fit by that authority for Government service. 3. It was, therefore, incumbent for the petitioner to have established that her husband, after being appointed had been medically examined by the appropriate authority and was declared fit by that authority. Obviously, there is no document to indicate that the husband of the petitioner was examined medically and was declared fit. There are no entries in this regard in the service-book of the husband of the petitioner. The petitioner, however, places reliance on a communication addressed by the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Bhokardan to the Civil Surgeon informing the Civil Surgeon that 4 the certificate issued to the husband of the petitioner was not in the records of the office of the Panchayat Samiti, Bhokardan and requested the Civil Surgeon to forward a duplicate copy if the Civil Surgeon had a copy with him. Obviously, the duplicate copy was never received by the respondents. Net result, therefore, is that there is no document on record to even remotely indicate that the husband of the petitioner was medically examined by the appropriate authority and was declared fit before he resumed his duties. In the light of that the provisions of sub-rule 2(b) of Rule 116 of the aforesaid Rules, i.e grant of family in case the Government servant has worked for less than one year would not be applicable to the present case. Unfortunately, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of family pension. 4. Thus, we see no merit in the petition and the petition being sans merit is summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. ( R.K.DESHPANDE ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE (vvr/3754.09wp) 5