Bombay HC Allows Retrospective Pension Benefit To Parents Of Deceased Unmarried Govt Employee

Mumbai: In a landmark judgment, the Bombay High Court has ruled that the Maharashtra Government Resolution (GR) dated January 22, 2015 — allowing dependent parents of a deceased ‘single’ or ‘unmarried’ government employee to receive family pension — should be applied retrospectively.

The court clarified that parents who were alive on the date of issuance of the GR are entitled to the benefit, even if their child passed away before that date.

A bench of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Ashwin Bhobe granted long-awaited relief to a septuagenarian couple who had been struggling for over 15 years to claim their only son’s pension for survival.

“In our view, the effect of the GR should be made applicable, at least to the dependent parent/s who is/are surviving as on the date of the said GR, notwithstanding that the death of the ‘single’ son/daughter may have occurred prior to the date of the GR,” the court held.

The petitioners, Vasantrao Deshmukh and his wife Snehlata, lost their only son to a snakebite on October 3, 2008. Their son had been employed in a school since June 1999 and died while on duty. After his death, the couple applied for pension benefits, but in November 2010, the Accountant General’s office rejected their plea, stating that biological parents of a deceased unmarried government employee were not eligible for family pension under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules.

The couple approached the High Court, citing the 2015 GR which included biological parents of unmarried employees within the definition of ‘family’. Their counsel, Abhijeet Desai, argued that denying the pension would amount to pushing dependent parents into starvation, defeating the purpose of the resolution.

“The State Government… realising that wholly dependent parents of a ‘single’ Government servant would be rendered to starvation if the pension is not made available to them… included the parents within the definition of ‘family’,” Desai said.

The State argued it had not yet decided whether to apply the GR retrospectively. However, the bench pointed to a previous High Court decision in Vimalbai Supdu Patil vs. State of Maharashtra, where retrospective application had been allowed. The judges remarked that the Accountant General had overlooked this precedent.

“We sincerely believe that if dependent parents have to keep their ‘mind, body and soul’ together, law must ensure that they receive pension for sustenance,” the bench observed, underscoring that the right to life under Article 21 includes a dignified existence.

The court directed the Project Officer to resubmit the couple’s pension proposal within 21 days, and ordered the Accountant General to process and grant it within 15 days thereafter, with effect from the GR’s date. The petition was accordingly disposed of.