1 2026:CGHC:22689 Order reserved on 30.01.2026 Order pronounced on 13.05.2026 Order uploaded on 14.05.2026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 112 of 2025 Smt. Anuradha Rao W/o Late C.S. Rao, aged about 72 years R/o - Quarter No. 15d, Street No. S.P.A. Sector- 5, Bhilai Nagar Tahsil and District- Durg (C.G.) ...Petitioner/Defendant No. 2 versus 1. C. Akash Murty S/o Late C. N. Murty, aged about 27 years R/o M.P.A. Quarter No. 15d, Sector- 5 Bhilai Nagar Tahsil and District- Durg (C.G.) 2. C. Piyush Murty S/o Late C. N. Murty, aged about 23 years R/o M.P.A. Quarter No. 15d, Sector- 5 Bhilai Nagar Tahsil and District- Durg (C.G.) (Plaintiffs) 3. Director In-Charge Bhilai Steel Plant Steel Bhawan Main Gate Bhilai Tahsil and District- Durg (C.G.) (Defendant No. 1) (As per Court Order Dated 06-08-2025 ... Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Shrestha Gupta, Advocate For Respondents 1&2 : Shri B.P. Singh and Shri Arpit Agrawal, Advocates For Respondent No. 3 : Shri Himanshu Pandey, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) C A V Order PAWAN KUMAR Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR Date: 2026.05.14 17:03:17 +0530 2 The petitioner in this case happens to be the mother and the respondents No. 1 and 2 – the sons of deceased employee namely C.N. Murthy who was working as a Senior Co-operative-cum-Technician with respondent No.3 herein. Said employee died in harness on 21.11.2009. As respondents No. 1 and 2 – the sons were minor, the deceased employee had got recorded in the service book the name of the present petitioner as his nominee, and accordingly on his death all the service benefits were granted to her. 2. Being legal representatives of the deceased employee, the respondents-sons filed an application for grant of succession in the competent Court of law, which came to be allowed vide order dated 25.02.2019 and thus the petitioner and respondents No. 1 and 2 were held to be entitled to get 1/3rd share each from the service benefits of the deceased employee. Said order was affirmed in appeal as well vide order dated 25.11.2009. It is however averred in the petition that in spite of succession application being allowed, the respondent No.3 paid pension in favour of the present petitioner. Respondents – sons then took recourse to filing of Civil Suit for declaration along with an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) praying for staying the pension being paid to the petitioner. Vide order dated 20.09.2023 learned trial Court found that the balance of convenience tilted in favour of the respondents-sons and thus allowed the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC restraining respondent No.3 from making payment of pension to the petitioner herein, till the disposal of the suit. Appellate Court vide its order dated 27.11.2024 also affirmed the order of the trial Court dated 3 20.09.2023 granting stay in favour of the respondents – sons. It is this order which is under challenge in this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 27.11.2024 which is under challenge in this petition is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and therefore liable to be set aside. He submits that both the Courts below have committed a serious error of law in staying the monthly pension which was being paid by respondent No.3 in favour of the petitioner as the deceased employee himself had got her name recorded as the nominee in his service book. He further submits that the petitioner at present is aged about 72 years and being fully dependent on the monthly pension would be rendered quite helpless to survive in the wake of the order impugned, and for that in the interest of justice the same needs to be set aside. According to the counsel for the petitioner, both the Courts below have ignored to consider the fact that during the lifetime of the deceased employee the mother of the respondents No. 1 and 2 had refused to visit the petitioner who happened to be her mother-in-law and for that the deceased employee had nominated his mother (the petitioner herein) to receive all his service related benefits. 4. On the other hand, counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 supports the order impugned and submits that on the basis of succession granted in favour of the respondents – sons by the competent Court of law apportioning the monthly pension in the ratio of 1:3 is fully justified, and being that the order impugned restraining respondent No.3 from paying pension to the petitioner is in accordance with law and does not call for any interference in this petition. 4 5 Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 6. Having gone through the records in this case it is divulged that during his lifetime the deceased employee had nominated the petitioner who happens to be his mother, to receive all the benefits flowing from his service and accordingly the respondent No.3 continued to pay the same to her. Of course, the succession granted by the competent Court of law favoured respondents – sons as well apportioning the monthly pension in the ratio of 1:3 to them including the petitioner, but one thing which needs to be kept in mind is that the family pension is governed strictly by the relevant Service Rules applicable in the establishment concerned, and it cannot be stretched to be a part of the estate of the deceased as happens in the conventional sense where transfer of property under the succession law is involved. Entitlement to such benefits depends upon the scheme and/or Rules in force extendable to the category of eligible dependents specified therein. As far as present case is concerned, the petitioner being the mother of the deceased employee and the recorded nominee was extended the pensionary benefits in accordance with the relevant Service Rules. From the record it appears that in order to obtain family welfare scheme the petitioner has deposited Rs. 8,46,256/- with respondent No.3 and as such the benefit is being extended to the petitioner. No doubt, the respondents being the sons are the legal heirs of the deceased employee but they do not necessarily fall within the category of eligible beneficiaries for family pension under the relevant rules, unless contrary is proved. Respondents – sons also get out of this pension benefit zone for the reason that admittedly by now they are major having landed in their twenties. The petitioner who had been receiving pension in accordance with official records would suffer a lot if such disbursement is interdicted. 5 7. The succession obtained by the sons’ pertains to ultimate entitlement and distribution at the time of deciding the suit after recording evidence, and not at the interlocutory stage. This apart, the petitioner appears to be in her late seventies and surviving solely on pension, and if stopped at this stage, it would cause irreparable loss prejudicing her livelihood. The comparative hardship thus favours continuation of payment to the petitioner. In other words, if the payment of pension continues to the petitioner, the sons are not likely to suffer irretrievable or insurmountable loss for the reason that if the suit ultimately is decided in their favour, the accounts can be settled then. Apart from this, the livelihood of petitioner is safely on the pension being paid to her. If it is allowed to stop by granting a temporary injunction, it would great inconvenience and irreparable loss to her and her survival would be put to a great jeopardy. In order to grant a temporary injunction all the three ingredients viz prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss must exist in favour of the party seeking it. Arguendo, if prima facie case existed in favour of the plaintiff, the other two ingredients i.e. balance of convenience and irrespirable loss do not favour the plaintiffs. Thus all the three ingredients governing grant of temporary injunction being prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss appear to favour the petitioner mother against continuance of the impugned injunction in favour of the sons. 8. The trial court as well as the appellate Court have therefore committed an error in restraining the employer from releasing pension to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Court has no hesitation to say that the order impugned is not sustainable in law and therefore it is set aside. Petition is allowed as such. 9. This Court feels it appropriate to clarify that every observation made in 6 this order is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and none shall affect the merits of the Civil Suit pending adjudication. The concerned Judge would act with absolute independence while deciding the suit but keeping itself within the confines of law. 10. Pending application(s), if any, go too. 11. Looking to the long pendency of the suit, it is expected that the learned trial Court would expedite the trial and conclude the same within a reasonable period of time. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Jyotishi/Pawan