1 CGHC010260792021 2026:CGHC:29410 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5798 of 2021  Smt. Raji Murli W/o Late Shri K. P. Murli Aged About 53 Years D/o Late Ganga Devi R/o B-13, Chinar, Ground Garden Colony, Mangla Chowk Bilaspur Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. Chhattisgarh Power Distribution Company Limited (CSPDCL) Through Managing Director, Vidyut Sewa Bhawan, Dangania Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. General Manager (Finance) Chhattisgarh Power Distribution Com. Ltd. (CSPDCL) Vidyut Sewa Bhawan, Dangania Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For Respondents : Dr. Veena Nair, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. K.R. Nair, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 13.07 .2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for the entire records of the case from the possession and custody of the respondents, 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 03/07/2021 (Ann. P/1) holding it arbitrary and illegal. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for grant of family pension until her death or till she remarries. 10.4 That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant any other or further relief, including the cost of SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.07.14 10:49:53 +0530 2 this petition, as may be deemed proper in the interest of justice.” 2. Facts in brief are that the mother of the petitioner Late Ganga Devi, who was working on the post of Assistant Grade – I retired from services on account of superannuation on 31.05.1997, and thereafter, died on 03.06.2021. The petitioner was married to one K.P. Murli, but unfortunately K.P. Murli died on 23.12.2016. The petitioner claimed family pension after death of her mother and such claim has been rejected by the respondents according to the provisions of Rule 47(6) of Chhattisgarh Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1976(for short “Rules, 1976”) vide order dated 03.07.2021. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that as the petitioner is a widow, she is entitled for family pension according to the provisions of Rule 47 and 48 of Rules, 1976. He would contend that respondent No. 2 committed an error of law while rejecting claim of the petitioner. He would pray to allow this petition. 4. On the other hand, Dr. Veena Nair, Advocate appearing for respondents would oppose. She would submit that the petitioner is not a widow of an employee of respondents rather she is claiming family pension on account of death of her mother. She would submit that as per provisions of Rule 47(6) and explanation appended to Rules, 1976, the claim of the petitioner has rightly been rejected by the respondent authorities. She would submit that the petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. Rule 47(6) of Rules, 1976 deals with contributory family pension, which states that in the case of death of government servant a widow or widower, 3 would be entitled to receive family pension up to the date of death or remarriage whichever is earlier; in the case of a son, until he attains the age of 21 years and in the case of an unmarried daughter, until she attains the age of 24 years or until she gets married, whichever is earlier. The proviso appended to this Rule states that if the son or unmarried daughter of a Government servant is suffering from any disorder or disability of mind or is physically crippled or disabled so as to render him or her unable to earn a living even after attaining the age of 25 years the family pension shall be payable to such son or unmarried daughter for life subject to certain conditions. 7. Rule 48 deals with Non-contributory family pension, which states that this rule would apply to a Government servant who was in service on the 31st March, 1966 and had specifically opted for the scheme of family pension as non-contributory family pension. 8. In the present case, mother of the petitioner was an employee of the respondents, who got retired from service on 31.05.1997. She died on 03.06.2021. The petitioner, who is a daughter of said employee was married to one K.P. Murli, unfortunately who died on 23.12.2016. The petitioner is not a widow of an employee of the respondents, therefore, provisions of Rule 47(6)(i) of Rules, 1976 would not attract at all. According to sub-rule(iii) as the petitioner is a widowed daughter and she has already attained age of 24 years, she has rightly been declined benefit of family pension. 9. Rule 48 of the Rules, 1976 would not apply in the present case as there is no document to infer that mother of the petitioner ever opted for non- contributory pension. 4 10. Having considered the facts discussed-above and provisions of law referred- above, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order dated 03.07.2021. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant