Where family pension is payable to multiple widows, it must be paid in equal shares.

The petitioner sought family pension following the death of her husband, a government employee, who died in service on 25 September 2010.

The petitioner claimed to be the deceased employee’s legally wedded wife; respondent No. 7 also asserted the status of legally wedded wife and claimed family pension.

A succession certificate was initially issued in favour of the petitioner, but respondent No. 7 successfully challenged it before the appellate court. The appellate order, which operated in favour of respondent No. 7, attained finality as it was not further challenged.

The petitioner relied upon a Finance Department notification dated 14 July 1998 and sought family pension, arrears, interest, and directions for consideration of her representations.

Whether, where two women claim family pension as widows of the deceased government employee, the family pension is payable to both in equal shares under Rule 47(7)(a)(i) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976.

Whether the petitioner and respondent No. 7 were entitled to directions for release of family pension and arrears notwithstanding the competing claims and the final appellate order concerning the succession certificate.

The Court applied Rule 47(7)(a)(i) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, which provides that where family pension is payable to more than one widow, it shall be paid to the widows in equal shares.

The Court also followed the approach adopted in W.P. No. 11328 of 2025, decided on 3 September 2025, where competing claims to family pension by two alleged wives were addressed by directing payment in equal proportion, subject to the continuance of the arrangement and the possibility of a declaratory suit regarding marital status.

The Finance Department notification dated 14 July 1998 was also relied upon by the petitioner, although the operative direction was principally based on Rule 47(7)(a)(i).

The Court treated the existence of competing claims by the petitioner and respondent No. 7 as a situation governed by Rule 47(7)(a)(i). Since both claimants asserted the status of widow of the deceased employee, the Court considered equal distribution of family pension to be the appropriate interim administrative arrangement, rather than directing exclusive payment to either claimant.

The finality of the appellate order relating to the succession certificate did not prevent the Court from applying the specific pension rule concerning payment to more than one widow. Following the reasoning in W.P. No. 11328 of 2025, the Court directed the competent authority to determine and release family pension and arrears in equal shares.

The Court further directed that the arrangement would continue during the petitioner’s lifetime, with respondent No. 7 being permitted thereafter to seek discontinuance of payment to the petitioner.

No direction for 18% interest was granted.