Dismissed

Ketan K. Tirodkar v. Union of India, through Secretary, Human Resource Ministry and Anr.

Bombay HC11 Mar 2015PIL/57/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a PIL concerning family pension rules for children of divorced wives, holding the grievance should be raised by affected parties in appropriate proceedings. The Court deleted earlier language permitting withdrawal of the PIL.

What did the court decide?

The PIL is dismissed; previous order permitting withdrawal is deleted.

Ketan K. Tirodkar Vs Union of India, through… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

1 of 4 PIL.57.2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.57 OF 2014

¶4

Ketan K. Tirodkar Petitioner

¶5

versus

¶6

Union of India through Secretary, Human Resource Department and others

¶7

Respondents

¶8

Mr.Ketan Tirodkar, Petitioner in person, present.

¶9

Ms.Neeta Masurkar and Mr.P.S.Gujar for Respondent no.1.

¶10

CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND B.P.COLABAWALLA, J.

¶11

DATE : 11 March 2015

¶12

PC :

¶13

The petitioner, appearing in person, had mentioned this matter on 6 February 2015 for urgent orders. After hearing the petitioner, following order was passed :

¶14

" Mentioned. Not on board.

¶15

Mr.Tirodkar, petitioner in person, seeks to withdraw the PIL. Having regard to the nature of the matter, we are of the view that the grievance sought to be raised by the petitioner in this PIL can be raised by affected parties before appropriate

¶16

2 of 4 PIL.57.2014

¶17

forum and therefore, this PIL is not to be entertained. Hence, he prays for withdrawal. PIL is permitted to be withdrawn. The PIL is disposed of accordingly."

¶18

The petitioner has thereafter mentioned this matter and submitted that there was some misunderstanding and he did not want to withdraw the PIL.

¶19

The PIL refers to All India Services (Death-CumRetirement Benefits) Amendment Rules, 2013 and particularly following rule :

¶20

"8(c) - Where the deceased member of service or pensioner is survived by a widow but has left behind eligible child or children from a divorced or an illegally wedded wife or wives, the eligible child or children shall be entitled to the share of family pension which the mother would have received at the time of the death of the member of service or pensioner had she not been so divorced or had she been legally wedded :

¶21

Provided that on the share or shares of family pension payable to such a child or children or to a widow or widows ceasing to be payable, such share or shares, shall not lapse, but shall be payable to the other widow or widows or to the other child or children otherwise eligible, in equal shares, or if there is only one widow or child, in full, to such widow or child.

¶22

Note : In past cases, no recovery from the previous beneficiary should be made. On receipt of

¶23

3 of 4 PIL.57.2014

¶24

an application from eligible child or children of the member of service or pensioner born to an ineligible mother, a decision regarding division or otherwise of family pension may be taken by the competent authority after satisfying himself or herself about veracity of facts and entitlement of the applicant."

¶25

The petitioner contends that the above rule should not be confined to All India Services but should be extended to all services.

¶26

The learned special advocate for the Union Government states on the basis of instructions received by her as under :

¶27

"6. In so far as pensioners of other Central Government employees are concerned, the rules and regulations/guidelines framed by the Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare are applicable to them. The provisions for family pension to the families of the Central Government Pensioners is governed under Rule 54 of Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972. In regard to family pension to the illegally born children from a void or voidable marriage, an Office Memorandum No.1/16/ 1996-P&PW(E) (Vol.II) dated 27.11.2012 has been issued by the Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare in consultation with the Ministry of Law and Justice (Department of Legal Affairs) and Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure)."

¶28

4 of 4 PIL.57.2014

¶29

We are of the view that if any person claims that similar benefit should be conferred on that person based on above Office Memorandum, it is open to such a person to make a claim before appropriate forum by instituting appropriate proceedings. Therefore, we do not think it necessary to change the order dated 6 February 2015, wherein we had mentioned as under :

¶30

"... ... Having regard to the nature of the matter, we are of the view that the grievance sought to be raised by the petitioner in this PIL can be raised by affected parties before appropriate forum and therefore, this PIL is not to be entertained. ... ..."

¶31

However, last three sentences referring to petitioner's prayer to withdraw the PIL and Court granting permission to withdraw, shall stand deleted. With these observations, the PIL is accordingly dismissed.

¶32

(CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶33

MST

Ketan K. Tirodkar v. Union of India, through Secretary, Human Resource Ministry and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ketan K. Tirodkar v. Union of India, through Secretary, Human Resource Ministry and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay S/O Kisanlal Agrawal Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Public Health Dept. and 16 Others

Vimukta Jati, Bhatkya Jamati Ashram Shala Karmpachari Sanghatana through Shri.Arun J. Bansod and an Vs State of Maharashtra through the Secretary of Social Justice and Special Assistance Dept. and Other

Mr. Hemant Baburao Patil Vs Union of India, through Office Attorney General and Ors.

Vijaykumar Bhikaji Marathe Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shri Prakash P. Kukreja Vs Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation through Its Commissioner and Ors.

Ketan K. Tirodkar Vs State of Maharashtra Via Principal Secretary and Anr.

Mr Mangilal Rawatmal Agarwal Vs State of Maharashtra, through Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Mr. Vasudev Ananta Bhoir Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ajay Ramesh Choudhary Vs the Registrar, University of Pune and Ors.

Ishan Sudhir Darekar Vs the Registrar, University of Pune and Ors.

Pravin Abhimanyu Patil Vs the Registrar, University of Pune and Ors.

Assam Company Ltd. and Vs M/S Empress Developers and Anr.

Varun Passary (Guarantor) Vs L and Finance Ltd. and 3 Others

Ansari Shabnam Bano Mohd. Shabbir Vs Chairman, Education Committee, Bhiwandi Nizampur Mahanagar Palika, Bhiwandi and Ors.