8.WP16644_2025.DOC Vidya Amin IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 16644 OF 2025 Yashodahara Vishnupant Bhalerao … Petitioner Versus Union of India, through Dept. of Telecommunication & Ors. … Respondents _________ Mr. Amar Gharte a/w. Ms. Anjali Shaw i/b. Kavita Vijapure for the petitioner. Ms. Leena Patil for the respondents. __________ CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & AARTI SATHE, JJ. DATE: 27 JULY 2026 P.C. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying for the following reliefs: “a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to call for record and proceedings from the respondent authorities pertaining to impugned communication and after going through the legality, validity and propriety of the same, hold and declare that the petitioner is entitled for family pension being a sister of the deceased pensioner employee of BSNL under Clause (iv) of sub-rule 6 of Rule 50 of Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 2021. b) This Hon’ble Court be further pleased to quash and set aside communication dated 07.10.2025 a/w. letter dated 25.09.2025 sent by respondent no. 3. c) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents to grant ‘Family Pension’ to the petitioner being a sister of the deceased pensioner employee of BSNL under Clause (iv) of sub rule 6 of Rule 50 of Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 2021.” 2. As gathered from the record, the petitioner is receiving family pension, being the sister of the deceased pensioner – employee of BSNL. The petitioner is 27 July 2026 2026:BHC-AS:31796-DB 8.WP16644_2025.DOC 70 years in age. The petitioner’s sister Smt. Surekha Vishnupant Bhalerao was working as a Senior Telecom Assisting Officer (TOA) (P) under the Ministry of Communications. She retired from her service on superannuation on 30 June, 2015. After her retirement, she was paid pension in accordance with the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 2021 with effect from 1 July, 2015. Smt. Surekha Bhalerao expired on 11 May, 2025. The petitioner contends that she is unmarried and was residing with the deceased sister. So also they have three brothers, namely, Sanjay Vishnupant Bhalerao, Rajiv Vishnupant Bhalerao and Shailesh Vishnupant Bhalerao, who were also residing with her and are unmarried. The petitioner contends that she has no source of income for livelihood and was wholly dependent on the deceased sister. The petitioner, being the senior citizen, is also suffering from physical ailments. 3. It is the petitioner’s case that on such backdrop, she filed an application on 10 June, 2025 for family pension to the petitioner under the provisions of Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 2021 along with all necessary documents, as the petitioner was under the impression that being the dependent sister of the deceased employee, she will be entitled to family pension. However, such application has not been considered and/or was rejected by the respondents by applying the provisions of Rule 50(6)(iv) of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 2021 read with Rule 50(11). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although there is no mental or physical disability because of the old age of the petitioner, such 27 July 2026 8.WP16644_2025.DOC disability is required to be construed by the Court and accordingly, the rule would be required to be read. We do not agree. 5. Ms. Patil, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed this petition. The opposition of Ms. Patil, learned counsel for the respondent relying on the reply affidavit of Mr. Shashank Bhardwaj, Joint Controller of Communication Accounts, Government of India, Ministry of Communication, in which it has been categorically contended that the petitioner would not be entitled for pension, as the petitioner does not have any physical or mental disability at any point of time. 6. Having perused the relevant rule as set out in the reply affidavit, it is clear that the family pension was payable under Rule 50(6)(iv) of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 2021 to the dependent siblings (i.e., brother or sister) of the deceased Government servant or pensioner, suffering from a “mental or physical disability”. Similarly, Rule 50(11)(a) provides that where a deceased Government servant or pensioner is not survived by a widow or widower or a child or parents eligible for family pension or if the widow or widower, children and parents of the Government servant or pensioner cease to be eligible for family pension, the family pension at the rate specified in sub-rule (2) shall be payable to the dependent siblings suffering from a “mental or physical disability”, of the Government servant or pensioner for life if the siblings were wholly dependent upon the Government servant or pensioner immediately before his or her death. 27 July 2026 8.WP16644_2025.DOC 7. In the present case, admittedly there is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner at any point of time was suffering from any mental or physical disability. Merely the petitioner is a senior citizen, would not permit us to observe that she is in mental or physical disability as required under the Rules. The petitioner accordingly had been rightly held not to be eligible for pension. The petition is devoid of merits. Hence, dismissed. No costs. (AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.) 27 July 2026 Signed by: Vidya S. Amin Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 03/08/2026 17:44:07