Bombay HC Kolhapur Bench Reads Down ‘Only Surviving Child’ Rule, Grants Family Pension to 75-Year-Old Mother of Deceased Zilla Parishad Employee

The Bombay High Court held that a dependent mother cannot be denied family pension merely because her deceased bachelor son had surviving married sisters, reading down Explanation I to Rule 116(16)(b)(iv) of Maharashtra’s Pension Rules, 1982 and quashing the rejection order of the Principal Accountant General.

A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, Circuit Bench at Kolhapur, comprising Justice Milind N. Jadhav and Justice Nandesh S. Deshpande, allowed a writ petition filed by Surekha Yashwant Pilankar, a 75-year-old woman whose claim for family pension was rejected on the ground that her deceased son had three surviving sisters. Her son, a Junior Clerk employed at a school under the Zilla Parishad, Ratnagiri, died on 7 April 2020 while in service. He was a bachelor and governed by the old pension scheme, having been appointed on 1 February 1995. The court read down the phrase “only surviving child of his parents” in Explanation I to Rule 116(16)(b)(iv) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, holding that the expression must mean no other child capable of providing economic assistance to the parents — not a literal requirement that the deceased had no siblings at all.

How the Pension Proposal Was Rejected

After her son’s death, the petitioner made an application for family pension as his dependent mother. The school where the deceased was employed forwarded a pension proposal dated 22 May 2023 to the Education Officer. After almost a year, on 18 March 2024, the office of the Principal Accountant General informed the Education Officer that the proposal stood rejected. The sole reason given was that the petitioner had three surviving daughters — the sisters of the deceased.

The rejection rested on Explanation I to Rule 116(16)(b)(iv) of the Pension Rules, 1982, which was inserted by the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Amendment Rules, 2016 with effect from 18 January 2016. That amendment had been introduced following a Government Resolution dated 22 January 2015. The GR extended the definition of “family” under the Pension Rules to include dependent parents of a “single government servant,” defined as “a government servant who is the only surviving child of his parents.” Since the deceased had three surviving sisters, the authorities treated him as not a “single government servant” and declined pension to the petitioner.

No reasons were recorded in the rejection communication as to how the presence of the three daughters — all married — made the petitioner ineligible. The bench noted at an earlier hearing on 15 June 2026 that it was “perplexed and intrigued” at the absence of any reasoning in the communication.

The Legal Issue: What ‘Single Government Servant’ Actually Means

The central question before the bench was whether Explanation I to Rule 116(16)(b)(iv) of the Pension Rules, 1982 bars a wholly dependent parent from receiving family pension whenever the deceased had any sibling alive, regardless of whether that sibling could or could not provide sustenance to the parent.

The State, represented by Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Tejas J. Kapre, supported the rejection. She argued that Rule 116(16)(b), before its 2016 amendment, defined “family” to mean spouse, judicially separated spouse, sons under 21, and unmarried daughters under 24 — parents were not included. The 2016 amendment added sub-clause (iv) to include dependent parents, but only in the case of a “single government servant,” defined by Explanation I as one who is “the only surviving child of his parents.” Since the deceased had three surviving sisters, the State maintained the provision did not apply and the rejection was correct.

Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Siddhesh Pilankar, argued that the petitioner was a Class-I heir of the deceased under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, that all three daughters were married, and that the petitioner was wholly dependent on her son who was the only earning member of the household. He relied on a Division Bench decision of this court delivered at Aurangabad in Satyabhamabai Prabhunath Kale v. State of Maharashtra (WP No. 6356 of 2014, decided 20 February 2018) and contended that excluding a dependent mother from the definition of “family” amounted to discrimination infringing Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Court-Appointed Advocate’s Research and the GR’s Purpose

Given the interpretive complexity, the bench on 23 June 2026 appointed Mr. Rugved R. Kinkar, an advocate practising at the Kolhapur Bench, through the Legal Aid Committee, to assist the court and carry out independent research.

Mr. Kinkar submitted that the Government Resolution dated 22 January 2015 — which prompted the 2016 amendment — explained its own purpose clearly. The GR stated that the deinition of “family” under the existing Pension Rules did not cover parents of a government servant, and that as a social security measure the term was being “enlarged restrictively” to include wholly dependent parents of a “single” government servant. The GR defined “wholly dependent parents” as parents who have no independent means or source of economic sustenance and are solely dependent on the government servant for all financial needs.

Mr. Kinkar argued that the phrase “dependent mother and father” in amended Rule 116(16)(b)(iv) is pari materia with “wholly dependent parents” in the GR. Reading the two together, “only surviving child” should not be construed as a government servant who had no siblings, but as a government servant who was the only child able to provide economic assistance to the parents. He pressed the decision in Vasantrao Shamrao Deshmukh v. State of Maharashtra (2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2133), in which this court had allowed family pension to the mother of a deceased government servant on similar reasoning, and which itself drew on the Supreme Court’s observations in State of Punjab v. Kharak Singh Kang ((1998) 4 SLR 594).

Mr. Kinkar also pointed to Rule 117 of the Pension Rules, 1982, which governs payment of family pension under the Family Pension Scheme, 1950. Sub-Rule 6(b) of Rule 117 expressly provides for pension to the father and then the mother of a deceased government servant when no surviving widow, husband, son, or daughter is entitled. He submitted that Rule 117 contains no equivalent of the discriminatory restriction imposed by Explanation I to Rule 116(16)(b)(iv), and that Rule 117 is in consonance with the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Additionally, he drew the court’s attention to Rule 50 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, as amended in 2021. Sub-Rule (10) of that rule provides that where a deceased government servant or pensioner is not survived by an eligible widow, widower, or child, family pension is payable to dependent parents for life if they were dependent on the government servant immediately before death — without any requirement that the deceased be an “only child.”

How the Bench Reasoned

The bench agreed with Mr. Kinkar’s submissions and with the petitioner’s counsel, and disagreed with the State.

The court held that Rule 116 of the Pension Rules, 1982 must be read in consonance with the Government Resolution dated 22 January 2015. The purpose of both the GR and the consequent amendment was social welfare of wholly dependent parents. Reading Explanation I literally — to mean the government servant must be his parents’ sole surviving child — would produce an outcome entirely at odds with that purpose. The bench found that the three married sisters of the deceased could not be assumed to provide sustenance to the petitioner, and that denying pension on that basis would drive the petitioner to penury.

The court expressed that the phrase “only surviving child” must be understood as meaning no other child who is able to provide economic assistance to the parents. The bench held that Explanation I to Rule 116(16)(b)(iv) “does not stand to test at all” if applied in the context of a dependent parent having children who are themselves married and not in a position to support the parent.

The bench grounded its reasoning in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It held that the right to receive family pension by wholly dependent parents emanates from the right to life with dignity guaranteed by Article 21, and that every legislative measure governing pensionary benefits must meet the test of reasonableness under Article 14. Excluding a dependent parent from pension benefits while she had no other means of sustenance did not meet that test.

The bench invoked the principle of purposive interpretation, quoting from the Supreme Court’s decisions in State of Karnataka v. Appa Balu Ingale ((1995) Supp (4) SCC 469) and Shailesh Dhairyawan v. Mohan Balkrishna Lulla ((2016) 3 SCC 619). The court applied those principles to hold that a statutory rule enacted as a benevolent social security measure must be interpreted to achieve the purpose of protecting dependent parents, not to exclude them through a technical reading of the word “only.”

The bench also drew on paragraphs 13 to 15 of Vasantrao Shamrao Deshmukh (supra), where this court had examined a comparable rejection by the Accountant General and held that dependent parents, to keep “mind, body and soul together,” must receive pension for sustenance. The bench stated it could not adopt any different view.

On Rule 117 and the Central Rules, the court observed that Rule 117 contains no discrimination of the kind introduced by Explanation I to Rule 116(16)(b)(iv), and that the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 impose no “only surviving child” restriction for parental entitlement. These comparisons reinforced the court’s conclusion that the literal reading urged by the State was inconsistent with the broader statutory and constitutional framework.

Outcome

The bench quashed and set aside the rejection communication dated 18 March 2024 issued by the Principal Accountant General, along with any consequential rejections made by Respondent No. 4 — the Education Officer. The Rule was made absolute forthwith.

The court directed Respondent Nos. 2 and 4, and any other respondent required to approve the pension proposal, to grant approval to the family pension proposal dated 22 May 2023 within two weeks from the date of receipt of a server copy of the order. Respondent No. 2, the Principal Accountant General, was directed to issue the order allowing the family pension proposal within that two-week period.

The Education Officer was separately directed to ensure that the petitioner receives all arrears of family pension due, along with simple interest at 6% per annum from the date of entitlement, within two weeks of the grant of the pension proposal. The bench stated that no delay would be tolerated and no extension would be allowed, and warned that both the Principal Accountant General and the Education Officer would be proceeded against in contempt proceedings if compliance was not made.

The court also appreciated the assistance of Mr. Rugved Kinkar, the court-appointed advocate, directing the Secretary of the Legal Aid Service of the court to release his professional fees within two weeks on application.