Disposed¶26

Niranjana Wd/O Gajanan Bhalerao and Another v. Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krushi Vidyapith, Akola, Thr. Registrar, Akola and Others

Bombay HC3 Sept 2025WP/4878/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

family pension arrears; widow; son; legal heirs; Maharashtra Civil Services Pension Rules 1982; Rule 115(5); Rule 116(5); children of first wife excluded; sons above 21 years; married daughter; Succession Certificate Akola; no objection; Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krushi Vidyapith; Nagpur Bench; writ petition disposed

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with direction to the respondents to release family pension (including arrears) in favour of petitioner 1 (widow) and petitioner 2 (son), subject to there being no other legal impediment in releasing such family pension. ¶26

Niranjana Wd/O Gajanan Bhalerao and Another Vs Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krushi Vidyapith, Akola, Thr. Registrar, Akola and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether petitioner 1 (widow of Gajanan Bhalerao) and petitioner 2 (his son) are entitled to a direction to the respondents to release family pension benefits including arrears. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

The respondent University does not dispute that petitioner 1 is the widow of Gajanan and petitioner 2 his son; the Succession Certificate on record supports the petitioners as his legal heirs.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

On the date of Gajanan's death, both his sons Suraj and Manoj (dates of birth 14.02.1989 and 28.07.1990) were above 21 years of age and his daughter Ku. Ashwini (date of birth 03.11.1992) was married.

¶17

Key takeaways

Suraj, Manoj and Ashwini do not fall within the definition of 'family' under Rules 115(5) and 116(5) of the Maharashtra Civil Services Pension Rules, 1982 (which covers a son below 21 years and an unmarried daughter below 24) and therefore cannot claim family pension.ratio¶19
In the Succession Certificate proceedings, Suraj, Manoj and Ashiwini were parties and no objection was raised to issuance of the certificate in favour of the petitioners, who gave sufficient proof of their rights to be recognised as legal heirs.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Division Bench: Anil S. Kilor & Rajnish R. Vyas, JJ., 03-09-2025) — Widow and son of deceased University employee Gajanan Bhalerao held entitled to release of family pension with arrears. Children of the deceased's first wife (two sons above 21 years of age and a married daughter on the date of death in 2021) fall outside the definition of 'family' under Rules 115(5) and 116(5) of the Maharashtra Civil Services Pension Rules, 1982, and cannot claim family pension; they were also parties to the Succession Certificate proceedings and raised no objection. The University's objection rejected; petition disposed of with a direction to release the family pension, subject to no other legal impediment.

¶1

1 20wp4878.2023..odt

¶2

2025:BHC-NAG:8831-DB

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR.

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO 4878 OF 2023

¶5

(Niranjana wd/o Gajanan Bhalerao and anr Vs. Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krushi Vidyapith, Akola and ors)

¶6

- - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶7

- - - - Mr. Kapil Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. A.R. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. N.R. Patil, AGP for respondent No. 3.

¶8

CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR & RAJNISH R. VYAS,JJ. DATED : 03-09-2025.

¶9

(P.C.)

¶10

Heard.

¶11

This petition is for direction to the respondents to release the benefits of family pension including its arrears to petitioner 1 being widow and petitioner 2 as son of Gajanan Bhalerao.

¶12

The respondent University is not disputing the relation of petitioner 1 as a widow of Gajanan and petitioner No. 2 as son of Gajanan. The Succession Certificate filed on record issued by learned 4^th Jt. Civil Judge, (Sr. Divn.), Akola supports the case of the petitioners that they are the legal heirs of deceased Gajanan.

¶13

In the above referred backdrop, the only objection raised by the respondents is that the sons and daughter of first wife of Gajanan made representation/application to the University claiming

¶14

Belkhede, PS

¶15

2 20wp4878.2023..odt

¶16

all the benefits accrued on death of deceased Gajanan. It is pointed out that in said application, there is specific a mention that they are the only relatives and there are no other relatives and if any person makes an application claiming any benefit, the same shall be decided after hearing them.

¶17

In the above backdrop, we perused the record and it is evident from the record that deceased Gajanan was in service of the respondent University and he died in the year 2021. His service book shows Sau Bebibai as his wife, Suraj and Manoj as sons and Ku. Ashwini as daughter. The date of birth of Suraj is 14.02.1989 and of Manoj 28.07.1990. Whereas, date of birth of Ku. Ashwini is 03.11.1992. Thus, considering the date of birth of sons and daughter of Gajajan, it is evident that on the date of death of Gajanan, both the sons were above 21 years of age and the daughter was married.

¶18

As per Rule 115(5) and 116(5) of Maharashtra Civil Services Pension Rules, 1982, family includes son below age of 21 years and the daughter who is not married and who is below the age of 24.

¶19

Thus Suraj, Manoj and Ashwini do not claim family pension as they do not fall under the definition of family as defined under the above referred Rules.

¶20

Belkhede, PS

¶21

3 20wp4878.2023..odt

¶22

Furthermore, it is to be noted that in proceeding for Succession Certificate, Suraj, Manoj and Ashiwini were party and it appears from Succession Certificate that no objection was raised to issuance of Succession Certificate in favour of the petitioners.

¶23

It further shows that the petitioners gave sufficient proof to satisfy the Court as regards their rights to be formally recognized as a legal heirs of deceased Gajanan Sitaram Bhalerao. Accordingly, Succession Certificate was issued on 21.10.2021 by the learned 3^rd Joint Civil Judge (Jr.Divn), Akola.

¶24

In view of the above referred observations, the objection raised by the respondents that the other legal heirs namely Suraj, Manoj and Ku. Ashwini are claiming right in the family pension cannot be accepted.

¶25

In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the petition needs to be allowed and the respondents are to be directed to release the family pension in favour of the petitioners, if there is no other legal impediments in releasing such family pension.

¶26

The petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶27

(RAJNISH R. VYAS, J) (ANIL S. KILOR, J)

¶28

Belkhede, PS

Niranjana Wd/O Gajanan Bhalerao and Another v. Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krushi Vidyapith, Akola, Thr. Registrar, Akola and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Niranjana Wd/O Gajanan Bhalerao and Another v. Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krushi Vidyapith, Akola, Thr. Registrar, Akola and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Food World Restaurant, Thr. Its Proprietor, Mohammad Asim Ali vs Maha. State Road Transport Corp., (Msrtc), Thr. Chief General Manager, Mumbai and Ors.

Shekhar S/O Suwalal Nagpure vs Union of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, New Delhi and Ors.

Vijay Ramrao Karadbhajane and Another vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Collector, Rehabilitaion Dept., Nagpur and Others

Vijay Ramrao Karadbhajane and Another vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Collector, Rehabilitaion Dept., Nagpur and Others

Sms Limited, Thr. Authorised Representative, Mr. Ujjwal M. Garg, Dy. Manager (Coal Mining) and Anr. vs the Western Coalfields Ltd. Thr. Its Chairman Cum Managing Director, Coal Estate and Ors.

Kishor Moreshwar Pimparkar Vs Accountant General (a and E)-Ii, Nagpur and Ors.