# Smt. Sheela Dubey v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 650
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-06
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 3515 of 2023
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-sheela-dubey-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52710
- **Pages:** 17

## Headnote

Chandan Sharma, Vaibhav Dixit, Yashwant
Singh

Issue for Consideration
Entitlement of widowed daughter of deceased
employee of Nagar Nagam to receive the family
pension.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Family pension -
Deceased-employee of Nagar Nigam was
died in harness - Widowed daughter -
Entitlement - Earlier, widow of deceasedemployee was paid family pension - Effect
- Claim was rejected on the ground that
Government Orders, providing for benefit
of pension/ family pension, payable to
retired employees of the Nigam and their
unmarried/
widowed/
divorced
10 All. Smt. Sheela Dubey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
651
daughters, would not be available to such
employees, who belong to the noncentralized service of the Nigam - Validity
challenged - Applicability of Act of 1961
relating to the Govt. employees to the
employees of Nigam, and also of G.O.
dated
03.12.2012,
20.05.2014,
11.11.2019
and
07.04.2022
felt
into
consideration :

Held : Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 7 of the Rules of
1961, clearly provides for the entitlement of a
widowed
daughter,
circumstanced
as
the
petitioner. Therefore, even if there be some
possible debate about the extent of application
of the Rules of 1961 to a deceased pensioner's
widowed
daughter,
and,
a
fortiori
her
entitlement to receive family pension under subRule (4) of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1961,
Regulation 7-A, which has been left untouched
by the Amendment of 1988, clinches the matter
in the petitioner's favour - The petitioner is
entitled to receive family pension on account of
her father's service after her mother's demise
under Rule 7(4) of the Rules of 1961, which
apply to her case. [Paras 28 and 29] (E-1)

List of Acts
UP
Municipal
Corporation
Act,
1959;
UP
Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 - Rules 6 and 7;
UP Palika (Centralized) Services Rules, 1966 -
Rules 27 and 47; Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika
Employees Pension and General Provident Fund
Regulations, 1962 - Reg. 6, 7, 12(2)

List of Keywords
Family pension; Employee of Nagar Nigam;
Retirement pension; Source of income; Willful
disobedience;
Centralized
service;
Noncentralized service of Nigam; Ultra Vires;
Financial
burden;
Additional
financial
aid;
Fortiori.

Case Arising From
Impugned order dated 28.01.2023 rejecting the
claim of family pension.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner : Aditya Prakash Verma,
Shailesh Verma
Advs. For the Respondent : Yashwant Singh,
Chandan Sharma, Vaibhav Dixit

## Text

_Characters 0–39,627 of 48,940. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39627 for what follows._

650 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
misplaced and irrelevant, as, the very
initiation of the process of election was
without jurisdiction.

39. As the facts and legal position are
apparent before us, we see no reason to
remand the matter back to the learned
Single Judge or to the Regional Committee
headed by the Joint Director, as, apparently
initiation of the process of election was by
an unauthorized person who had no locus
standi in the matter and it is the Authorized
Controller of the College alone who could
have initiated the process of election as per
law and ensured its conduct. In view of this
singular and fundamental jurisdictional
error, all other issues, even though we have
dealt
with
the
same,
pale
into
insignificance.

40. For all these reason, we are of the
opinion that the judgment of the learned
Single Judge can not be sustained and it is
accordingly quashed.

41. We have been informed that the
respondent no. 2's signatures have been
attested subsequent to passing of the
impugned judgment. Be that at it may, such
attestation is a consequence of the
judgment of the learned Single Judge
which we have quashed, therefore, any
consequential action is also quashed. The
Authorized Controller shall continue to
manage the Institution, as earlier.

42.
We
accordingly,
direct
the
Authorized
Controller
to
initiate the
process of election to the Committee of
Management of the College strictly in
accordance
with
statutorily
approved
scheme of administration and take it to its
logical conclusion, at the earliest say within
a period of two months. The Authorized
Controller shall function as such under the
order of this Court, subject to the
provisions of Sub -section (3) and (4) of
Section 6 of the Act, 1971 and if any orders
are required to be passed by the competent
authority to extend his term in this regard,
the same would be passed forthwith.

43. The special appeal is allowed.

44. The writ petition is dismissed.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 650
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ A No. 3515 of 2023

Smt. Sheela Dubey ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Aditya Prakash Verma, Shailesh Verma

Counsel for the Respondents:
Chandan Sharma, Vaibhav Dixit, Yashwant
Singh

Issue for Consideration
Entitlement of widowed daughter of deceased
employee of Nagar Nagam to receive the family
pension.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Family pension -
Deceased-employee of Nagar Nigam was
died in harness - Widowed daughter -
Entitlement - Earlier, widow of deceasedemployee was paid family pension - Effect
- Claim was rejected on the ground that
Government Orders, providing for benefit
of pension/ family pension, payable to
retired employees of the Nigam and their
unmarried/
widowed/
divorced
10 All. Smt. Sheela Dubey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
651
daughters, would not be available to such
employees, who belong to the noncentralized service of the Nigam - Validity
challenged - Applicability of Act of 1961
relating to the Govt. employees to the
employees of Nigam, and also of G.O.
dated
03.12.2012,
20.05.2014,
11.11.2019
and
07.04.2022
felt
into
consideration :

Held : Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 7 of the Rules of
1961, clearly provides for the entitlement of a
widowed
daughter,
circumstanced
as
the
petitioner. Therefore, even if there be some
possible debate about the extent of application
of the Rules of 1961 to a deceased pensioner's
widowed
daughter,
and,
a
fortiori
her
entitlement to receive family pension under subRule (4) of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1961,
Regulation 7-A, which has been left untouched
by the Amendment of 1988, clinches the matter
in the petitioner's favour - The petitioner is
entitled to receive family pension on account of
her father's service after her mother's demise
under Rule 7(4) of the Rules of 1961, which
apply to her case. [Paras 28 and 29] (E-1)

List of Acts
UP
Municipal
Corporation
Act,
1959;
UP
Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961 - Rules 6 and 7;
UP Palika (Centralized) Services Rules, 1966 -
Rules 27 and 47; Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika
Employees Pension and General Provident Fund
Regulations, 1962 - Reg. 6, 7, 12(2)

List of Keywords
Family pension; Employee of Nagar Nigam;
Retirement pension; Source of income; Willful
disobedience;
Centralized
service;
Noncentralized service of Nigam; Ultra Vires;
Financial
burden;
Additional
financial
aid;
Fortiori.

Case Arising From
Impugned order dated 28.01.2023 rejecting the
claim of family pension.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner : Aditya Prakash Verma,
Shailesh Verma
Advs. For the Respondent : Yashwant Singh,
Chandan Sharma, Vaibhav Dixit
(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. This writ petition is directed against
an order dated 28.01.2023, rejecting the
petitioner's claim for grant of family
pension. By amendment made to the writ
petition under orders of this Court, the
petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of
certiorari to quash the Uttar Pradesh Palika
(Centralized) Services Rules, 1966 (for
short, 'the Service Rules of 1966') to the
extent that these do not provide similar
treatment in the matter of grant of family
pension to employees of the Nagar Nigam,
Kanpur Nagar, on one hand, and members
of the centralized service, on the other. A
further writ, order or direction in the nature
of certiorari is prayed to quash the
amendments made vide Notification dated
11.01.1988 (for short, 'the Amendment of
1988'), published in the Gazette, to the
extent it repeals Regulation 6 of the Kanpur
Nagar Mahapalika Employees Pension and
General Provident Fund Regulations, 1962
(for short, 'the Regulations of 1962').

2. Smt. Sheela Dubey, the petitioner,
is a widow. She is the daughter of
Saraswati Narayan Tiwari, who was a
Class-III employee with the Nagar Nigam,
Kanpur Nagar (for short, 'the Nigam'). It is
not in dispute that Saraswati Narayan
Tiwari retired from the service of the
Nigam in the year 1992, earning a
retirement pension, amongst other post
retiral benefits. There is also no cavil about
the fact that Saraswati Narayan Tiwari
received his retirement pension until his
demise on 18.11.2013. After he passed
away, his widow, Smt. Katyayani Tiwari
claimed and was paid a family pension in
accordance with rules. Katyayani Tiwari
received her retirement pension until her
demise on 23.07.2016. This course of
nature would not have brought misfortune
652 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
for the petitioner, but for the fact that the
petitioner's husband, Anil Kumar, predeceased
both
his
father-in-law
and
mother-in-law, exiting this mortal world on
11.05.2012.

3. Whatever the late Anil Kumar's
financial affairs be, it is not in dispute that
the petitioner, after her husband's demise,
came over to her parents' house and lived
with them. After her father's demise, she
stayed on with her mother. It is her case
that the only source of income, after her
husband's
demise,
was
her
father's
retirement pension, till he was alive, and,
after his death, the family pension that her
mother received for her father's services.
The petitioner claimed a family pension,
after her mother's demise, for her father's
services, she being a widowed daughter,
who had become a widow before her
father's demise and was entirely dependent
upon his pension for her sustenance.

4. In order to support her claim to
receive a family pension, on account of her
father's demise, being a widowed daughter,
dependent upon him, and after him her
mother,
the
petitioner
relied
upon
Government Orders dated 03.12.2012,
20.05.2014, 11.11.2019 and 07.04.2022.
She said that these Government Orders
entitled
a
widowed
daughter,
circumstanced as she was, to receive a
family pension for her father's services,
rendered with the Nigam. We would make
necessary allusion to the last mentioned
Government Orders, four in number, during
the course of this judgment. She put
forward her claim to family pension,
annexing all relevant documents, which
included a certificate of family members of
the deceased, besides the Government
Orders, on which she relied. This claim was
made before the Nagar Ayukt of the
Nigam. There was a repetition and
reminder of the claim before the Nagar
Ayukt, but to no avail. There is on record a
communication dated 16.04.2022 from the
Nigam to the Director, Local Body, U.P.,
Lucknow, seeking guidance regarding the
petitioner's claim.

5. The petitioner's claim was not
decided for a considerable period of time,
compelling
her
to
institute
Writ-A
No.10569 of 2022, seeking necessary
directions to the Nigam. This Court vide
order dated 29.07.2022 disposed of the writ
petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to
move a fresh representation before the
Nigam, within two weeks of the date of the
order made in the writ petition, and the
Nigam
was
directed
to
decide
the
petitioner's representation, within six weeks
of the date of submission thereof, along
with a certified copy of this Court's order.
Though, a representation dated 08.08.2022
was filed afresh by the petitioner before the
Nagar Ayukt of the Nigam, her claim was
not considered or decided, as directed by
this Court. This led the petitioner to
institute Contempt Application (Civil)
No.6887 of 2022, which was again
disposed of by this Court vide order dated
18.11.2022, saying that though a prima
facie case of willful disobedience was
made out, no notice was being issued to the
contemnor at that stage. Instead, two
months' further time was granted to the
Nagar Ayukt to comply with the order
dated 29.07.2022 passed by this Court in
the Writ Petition. It was after this much of
toil that the Nagar Ayukt moved his pen
and rejected the petitioner's representation
by means of the impugned order dated
28.01.2023. We would advert to the
reasons that the Nagar Ayukt has assigned
to decline the petitioner's claim and the
10 All. Smt. Sheela Dubey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
653
soundness thereof, again, later in this
judgment.

6. Aggrieved, this writ petition has
been instituted.

7. Pending the writ petition, the
petitioner applied to incorporate pleas,
amending it. She also sought amendments
to bring in further reliefs. The relief,
challenging the vires of the Service Rules
of 1966 to the extent that these do not
provide for family pension to members of
the non-centralized service as violative of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, was
also incorporated. In addition, a challenge
was laid to the Amendment of 1988, to the
extent that it deletes Regulation 6 of the
Regulations of 1962, which provided for
grant of family pension to the widowed
daughter,
subject
to
the
conditions
enumerated there and the order of priority
given. It must be remarked here that
whereas the vires of the Service Rules of
1966 was challenged on the ground of their
constitutionality, alleging a violation of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, the
Amendment of 1988 to the Regulations of
1962, was limited in scope to the
amendment being ultra vires Section
548(1)(f) of the Uttar Pradesh Municipal
Corporation Act, 1959 (for short, 'the Act
of 1959').

8. When this petition was instituted
way back in the year 2023, a notice of
motion was issued and parties exchanged
affidavits. These affidavits were exchanged
on unamended pleadings. Nevertheless, the
parties having exchanged affidavits, on
06.09.2023 the writ petition was admitted
to hearing, which commenced forthwith. It
was heard on a number of dates. Midway
during hearing, the petitioner moved an
application to seek those amendments that
we
have
spoken
of
already.
The
amendment application, which was moved
in Court on 16.12.2023, was granted and so
was time to the Nigam to file a
supplementary counter affidavit to the
amended pleas. A supplementary counter
affidavit
dated
01.05.2024
and
a
supplementary rejoinder affidavit dated
13.05.2024 were then filed.

9. Heard Mr. Aditya Prakash Verma,
learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.
Yashwant
Singh,
learned
Counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1
and 2.

10. We have carefully considered the
submissions advanced by learned Counsel
on both sides and perused the record.

11. The reasoning given by the Nagar
Ayukt in writing the impugned order is that
the Mukhya Nagar Lekha Parikshak of the
Nigam had expressed opinion that vide
Government Order dated 11.11.2019, the
entitlement to receive pension/ family
pension, as provided vide Government
Orders dated 03.12.2012 and 20.05.2014
for the retired employees/ families of
deceased employees of the Nigam, had
been adopted under Rule 47 of the Service
Rules of 1966. It is then remarked that the
Regulations of 1962 apply to employees of
the non-centralized service of the Nigam,
whereas the Service Rules of 1966 apply to
members of the centralized service. It is
opined by the Nagar Ayukt that the
Government Orders, providing for benefit
of pension/ family pension, payable to
retired employees of the Nigam and their
unmarried/ widowed/ divorced daughters,
would not be available to such employees,
who belong to the non-centralized service
of the Nigam. These benefits provided by
the Government Orders would be available
654 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to employees of the Nigam, governed by
the Service Rules of 1966, since the
Government Orders had been adopted
under the Service Rules of 1966 alone; not
under the Regulations of 1962. The claim
of the petitioner was, accordingly, denied.
The four Government Orders, that are
subject matter of all reasoning carried in
the impugned order, are dated 03.12.2012,
20.05.2014, 11.11.2019 and 07.04.2022.
We have perused these Government Orders
that are on record.

12.
Government
Order
dated
03.12.2012 makes elaborate provision as to
persons entitled to receive family pension
in the event of a serving or retired
government employee's death. It classifies
the heirs of a government employee into
Category-I and Category-II and details their
inter se priority, in terms of which they
would be entitled to family pension. In the
presence of a family member, placed higher
than the other, the one, lower down in order
of entitlement, would be excluded. What
we notice is that Government Order dated
03.12.2012 makes provision for entitlement
to family pension and its regulation for
family
members
or
dependents
of
government employees. It per se does not
apply to a local body, like the Nigam,
governed by its own Act, to wit, the Act of
1959.

13.
Government
Order
dated
20.05.2014 further issues guidelines for
provision of family pension to dependents
and family members entitled, but again in
relation to government employees. It has
nothing to do with employees of the
Nigam,
whether
belonging
to
the
centralized service or the non-centralized
service.

14. Then falls for consideration the
Government
Order
dated
11.11.2019,
which appears to be decisive, if one were to
go by a certain vantage alone, without
looking for the tenability of the petitioner's
claim elsewhere. This Government Order
dated
11.11.2019
provides
that
the
Government Orders dated 03.12.2012 and
20.05.2014,
providing
and
regulating
payment of family pension to dependent
family members of a deceased government
employee, would stand adopted under Rule
27 into the Service Rules of 1966, the
financial burden whereof would be borne
by the Local Body concerned and the
Government
would
not
extend
any
additional financial aid. The result would
be
that
the
entitlement
under
the
Government Orders dated 03.12.2012 and
20.05.2014 would stand extended to
employees, who are governed by the
Service Rules of 1966, that is to say,
employees of the Nigam, who belong to the
centralized service of the Nigam. The
Government Orders dated 03.12.2012 and
20.05.2014 would not apply to such
employees, who do not belong to the
centralized service, like the petitioner's
father.

15. There is then a Government Order
dated 07.04.2022, which adds to those
eligible for a family pension, a widowed
daughter. Now, this Government Order,
again, is one issued in the context of
government employees alone. But, by
virtue
of
Government
Order
dated
11.11.2019, this too would stand adopted or
become applicable under the Service Rules
of 1966 to such of the employees of the
Nigam, who belong to the centralized
service. This Government Order dated
07.04.2022 provides for family pension to
such widowed daughters of an employee,
where the daughter's husband has died
before the death of the government
employee or that of his widow, in case the
10 All. Smt. Sheela Dubey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
655
widow is already receiving a family
pension.

16. Therefore, if one were to look at
the Government Orders dated 03.12.2012,
20.05.2014, 11.11.2019 and 07.04.2022
alone, the reasoning adopted by the Nagar
Ayukt would seem flawless. But, it is not.

17.
It
is
common ground
that
entitlement of the petitioner to receive
family
pension is
governed
by
the
Regulations of 1962, that apply to
dependent relatives of a deceased employee
of the Nigam, entitled to receive family
pension after his demise, whether in
harness, or after the employee's retirement.
It deals with other matters regarding
pension and gratuity too. Regulation 6 of
the Regulations of 1962, as it originally
stood, read:

"भाग २
पाररिाररक सेिा ननिृवत्त िेर्न

६-(१) प्रत्येक अचिकार जो सेिा
ननिृनत िेतन के योग्य २० िषो की अहकर सेिा
पूणा करके चाहे सेिा ननिृवत्त होने पर अथिा सेिा
में रहते हुये मृत हो जािे तो उसके पररिार को
नीचे के उप-विननयम (२) में िखणात िनांक से
अचिक न होते हुये पररिाररक सेिा ननिृवत्त िेतन
िस िषा तक दिया जायगा।

प्रनतबन्ि यह है कक पाररिाररक सेिा
ननिृनत िेतन िुगतान का समय ककसी िी िशा
में यदि मृत्यु सेिा ननिृवत्त के बाि हो तो उस
दिनांक से जब सम्बजन्ित अचिकार सेिा
अिचि पूणा होने पर सेिा ननिृत्त हुआ हो या होता
अथिा यदि मृत्यु सेिा में रहते हुए हो तो उस
दिनांक से जब िह सािारण अिस्था में सेिा
अिचि पूणा कर ननिृवत्त िेतन प्राप्त कर सेिा
ननिृत्त होता, ५ िषा से अचिक न होगा।

दटप्पणी-(१)
उस
अचिकार
के
सम्बन्ि में जजसकी मृत्यु सिेतन सेिा ननिृवत्त
के लिए ननिृवत्त पूिा अिकाश काि में हो तो
उसके सम्बन्ि में पाररिाररक सेिा ननिृवत्त िेतन
के पांच िषा का समय उस दिनांक से चगना
जायगा जजस दिन सािारण अिस्था में िह
ननिृवत्त िेतन सदहत सेिा ननिृत्त होता तथा िह
समय उस दिन से न चगना जािेगा जजस दिनांक
से िह अचिकार सेिा ननिृवत्त िेतन प्राप्त कर
सेिा ननिृत्त होना चाहता था और जो दिनांक
िास्ति में न आया।

(२) कायाकाररणी सलमनत अपने
स्िवििेक
से
अपिाि
िूत
पररजस्थनतयों
(इक्सेप्सनि सरकमस्टांसेज) पाररिाररक सेिा
ननिृवत्त िेतन ककसी ऐसे अचिकार के पररिार
को िे सकती है जो २० बषा का सेिाकाि पूणा
करने के पूिा कम से कम १० िषा सेिा पूणा करके
मृत हो गया हो।

ट का-मूि विननयमों में ऊपर के शब्ि
'ननिृवत्त' तथा 'ककसी' के बीच शब्ि 'उपािान'
छप गया था। इसे चौथे संशोिन द्िारा शुद्ि
करके शब्ि 'िेतन' ककया गया तथा यह संशोिन
साथ में दिए नोट के अनुसार २ जून १९६२ से ह
मान्य है।

(३) जहां महकर सेिा कम से कम
ननिााररत समय से कम हो तो उस कमी को
लसविि सविास रेगुिेशन के आदटाककि ४२३ (१)
की व्यिस्था में छूट िेकर क्षमा न ककया जाय।
656 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(२) पाररिाररक सेिा ननिृवत्त िेतन का
िनांक ननम्न प्रकार ननिााररत ककया जायेगा-

(क) सेिा में रहते हुए मृत्यु होने की
िशा में उस ननिृवत्त िेतन का आिा जो
सम्बजन्ित अचिकार की मृत्यु होने के दिनांक
के अगिे दिन िेय होता, यदि िह उस दिन
ननयत सेिा अिचि पूणा होने पर सेिा ननिृत्त कर
दिया जाता।

(ख) सेिा ननिृनत के बाि मृत्यु होने
की िशा में उसकी सेिा ननिृवत्त पर स्िीकृत ककए
गए सेिा ननिृवत्त िेतन (पेन्शन) का आिा।

प्रनतबन्ि यह है कक पाररिाररक
ननिृवत्त िेतन का िन अचिक से अचिक १५० रु०
से अचिक न होगा तथा कम से कम ३० रु०
प्रनतमास से कम न होगा।

प्रनतबन्ि यह िी है कक पाररिाररक
सेिा ननिृवत्त िेतन (पेन्शन) का न्यूनतम घनांक
सम्बजन्ित अचिकार को उसकी सेिा ननिृवत्त
पर स्िीकृत होने िािे सेिा ननिृनत िेतन
(पेन्शन) के िनांक से अचिक न होगा अथिा
यदि िह सेिा में रहते हुए मृत हो जाय तो सेिा
ननिृवत्त िेतन (पेन्शन) उस िनांक से अचिक न
होगा जो उसे मृत्यु के बाि िािे दिन सेिा ननिृत्त
होने पर ननिृवत्त िेतन के रूप में प्राप्य होता।

दटप्पणी-यदि पेन्शन पाने िािे
अचिकार ने अपनी पेन्शन के ककसी अंश का
संरालशकरण करा लिया है तो पाररिाररक
पेन्शन उस अंश के बराबर कम कर ि जायगी।
उिाहरणाथा यदि पेन्सन ९० रु० प्रनतमास हो
और उस में से ३० रु० का संरालशकरण करा
लिया गया हो तो पाररिाररक पेन्शन रु० ६०/२
ऋण ३० अथाात १५० प्रनतमास होगी।

(३) इस िाग के अन्तगात कोई
पेन्शन िेय न होगी।

(क) नीचे के उपविननयम (४) के खंड
(ख) में उजल्खत ककसी व्यजक्त को जब तक कक
मुख्य नगर अचिकार इस बात से संतुष्ट न हो
कक िह व्यजक्त जजसे पेशन ि जाने िाि है
अपने पोषण के लिये मृत अचिकार पर आचश्रत
था।

(ख) ककसी अवििादहत स्त्री सिस्या
को उसके वििाह होने की िशा में।

(ग) पररिार के ककसी विििा स्त्री
सिस्या को यदि िह पुनविािाह कर िे।

(घ) मृत अचिकार के ककसी िाई को,
उसके १८ िषा की अिस्था पूणा कर िेने पर, तथा

(ङ) ककसी ऐसे व्यजक्त को जो मृत
अचिकार के पररिार का सिस्य न हो।

(४) उपविननयम (५) के अन्तगात
ककये गये नामांकन पत्र में की गई व्यिस्था को
छोडकर-

(क) इस िाग के अंतगात स्िीकृत
ककया गया सेिा ननिृत्त िेतन (पेन्शन) ननम्न
प्रकार दिया जािेगा -

(१) उत्तरजीिी जेष्ठ विििा को यदि
मृत, पुरुष अचिकार हो अथिा पनत को यदि
मृत स्त्री अचिकार हो।

(२) जैसी िी िशा हो विििा पत्नी
अथिा पनत के न होने पर उत्तरजीिी जेष्ठ पुत्र
को।
10 All. Smt. Sheela Dubey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
657

(३) दिये हुये नम्बर (१) ि (२) के न
होने पर उत्तरजीिी जेष्ठ अवििादहत पुत्री को,
तथा

(४) इन सब के न होने पर विििा
जेष्ठ पुत्री को, तथा

(ख) खण्ड (क) के अन्तगात सेिा
ननिृवत्त िेतन (पेन्शन) ककसी व्यजक्त को िेय न
होने की िशा में िह ननिृत्त िेतन (पेन्शन) ननम्न
प्रकार स्िीकृत की जािेगी।

(१) वपता को

(२) वपता के न होने पर माता को

(३) वपता और माता िोनों के न होने
पर जेष्ठ उत्तरजीिी भ्राता को जजसकी अिस्था
१८ िषा से कम हो।

(४) इन सब के न होने पर ज्येष्ठ
उत्तरजीिी अवििादहत बदहन को, तथा

(५) दिये हुये नम्बर (१) से (४) के न
होने पर जेष्ठ उत्तरजीिी विििा िदहन को, तथा

(६) (१) से (५) तक िखणात व्यजक्तयों
के न होने की िशा में पूिा मृत पुत्र के बच्चों को
उस क्रम में जजस क्रम में मृत अचिकार के
बच्चों को ऊपर के खण्ड (क) के उप-खण्ड (२),
(३) और (४) के अन्तगात िेय हो।

दटप्पणी - ऊपर के खण्ड (क) (१) के
अंतगात प्रयोग ककये गये "जेष्ठ उत्तरजीिी
विििा" शब्िों की व्याख्या मृत अचिकार के
साथ हुए वििाह सम्बन्ि की पूिाता से की
जायगी न कक उत्तरजीिी वििाओं की आयु के
उल्िेख से।

(५) प्रत्येक महापालिका अचिकार
अपनी पूणा ननयुजक्त के तुरन्त बाि प्रपत्र [ङ] में
यह दिखाते हुए कक इस िाग के अन्तगात
स्िीकृत की गई पेन्शन उनके पररिार के
सिस्यों को ककस प्रकार िेय होगी, नामांकन पत्र
िाखखि करेगा और जहां तक िह िैि होगा
पाररिाररक ननिृत्त िेतन [पेन्सन] इसप्रकार
ककए गए नामांकन के अनुसार दिया जािेगा।
ककन्तु प्रनतबन्ि यह है कक नामांककत व्यजक्त
जजस दिन उसे पेन्शन िेय हो उपर के
उपविननयम (३) के अन्तगात पेन्शन प्राप्त
करने के अयोग्य न हो जाय। यदि नामांककत
व्यजक्त उपरोक्त उप-विननयम के अंतगात
ननिृवत्त िेतन [पेन्शन] पाने के अयोग्य हो गया
हो अथिा हो जाय तो पेन्शन नामांकन पत्र में
दिए हुए क्रम के अनुसार उसके बाि िािे
व्यजक्त को ि जािेगी। इस उप विननयम के
अंतगात ककए गए नामांकनों के सम्बम्ब में
विननयम ५ के उपविननयम (५) (ख), (७) और
(८) िागू होंगे।

(६) (क) इस िाग के अंतगात स्िीकृत
ककया गया सेिा ननिृवत्त िेतन [पेन्शन] एक
समय में मृत अचिकार के पररिार के एक से
अचिक सिस्य को िेय न होगी।

(ख) इस िाग के अंतगात स्िीकृत
ककया गया सेिा ननिृवत्त िेतन [पेन्शन] यदि
पररिार के ककसी सिस्य को उपविननयम (१) के
अंतगात दिए हुए समय के अन्िर उसकी मृत्यु
हो जाने अथिा उसके वििाह कर िेने अथिा
अन्य ककसी कारण से िेय नह ं रहती तो िह
ननिृवत्त िेतन (पेन्शन) उपविननयम (४) के
अंतगात दिए हुए उसके बाि िािे व्यजक्त को
पुनः स्िीकृत की जािेगी अथिा उपविननयम
658 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
[५] के अन्तगात ककए गए नामांकन में इसके
बाि िािे क्रम में आने िािे व्यजक्त को, जैसी
िी िशा हो, ि जािेगी, जो इस िाग के िूसरे
ननयमों की पूनता करता हो।

(७) इस िाग में स्िीकृत की गई सेिा
ननिृवत्त िेतन (पेन्शन) ककसी असािारण सेिा
ननिृवत्त िेतन (पेन्शन) उपािान अथिा कारुण्य
अचििेय जो उस समय िागू ननयमों और
अचिननयमों के अन्तगात स्िीकृत ककया गया
हो, के अनतररक्त िेय होगा।

(८) इस िाग के अन्तगात स्िीकृत
प्रत्येक सेिा ननिृवत्त िेतन (पेन्शन) के लिये
प्राजप्तकताा के िविष्य में चररत्र का अच्छा होना
विशेष प्रनतबन्ि (कंडीशन) होगा। यदि ककसी
सेिा ननिृत्त िेतन (पेन्शन) प्राजप्तकताा को ककसी
बडे जुमा में सजा हो जाय अथिा िह ियंकर
िुष्चररत्र (ग्रेि लमस कान्डक्ट) का अपरािी पाया
जाय तो कायाकाररणी सलमनत को पूर सेिा
ननिृत्त िेतन (पेन्शन) अथिा उसके कुछ िाग
को रोक िेने का अचिकार रहेगा।

ऐसे विषयों में कायाकाररणी सलमनत
का ननणाय अंनतम ननणाय होगा जब तक कक
महा-पालिका उसमें कोई पररितान न कर िे।

ट का-१. अननिाया सेिा ननिृत्त की
आयु का वििरण विननयम २ के उपविननयम (९)
के नीचे ि ट का सं० २ में दिया हुआ है।

ट का-२. लसविि सविास रेगुिेशन्स
के बािूम २ में दिये अपेंडडक्ि ४१ के पैरा १-(१)
के नीचे दिए नोट संख्या (।।) के अनुसार
महापालिका अचिकाररयों के लिए सेिा अिचि
पूणा करने पर सेिा ननिृवत्त का दिनांक सािारण
अिस्था में िह दिन है जजस दिन कोई अचिकार
६० िषा की अिस्था पूणा करता है।

३. ऊपर के उपविननयम (१) के
प्रनतबन्ि में प्रयोग ककए गए शब्ि "सेिा ननिृत
होता" का तात्पया उस अचिकार के संििा में
जजसे सेिा काि में एक या अचिक सेिा िृद्चि
स्िीकार की जािे, िह दिनांक होगा जजस दिन
अजन्तम स्िीकृत सेिा िृद्चि का समय समाप्त
होता हो।

(लस. स. रेगुिेशन्स के अपेजन्डक्स
४१ के पैरा ५ के विषय में िा.स. का ननणाय सं.
१३ िेखखये)

४. ऊपर के उपविननयम (५) में प्रयोग
ककए गए शब्ि "पूणा ननयुजक्त" का तात्पया
स्थायी पि पर स्थायी ननयुजक्त में स्थायीकरण
से है।

५. इस विननयम में प्रयोग ककए गए
शब्ि "पुत्र" में सौतेिा पुत्र सजम्मलित नह ं है।
(लमननस्ट्र आफ िा यू० ओ० सं० २१७८८/५८ ए.
डी. िी. (एफ) दिनांक २५-५-५८ अपेजन्डक्स ४१
पैरा ५ ि स ननणाय संख्या (८)।

६. लसविि सविास रेगुिेशन्स के
िािूम २ में दिये अपेजन्डक्स ४१ के ननयम ५ के
सम्बन्ि में दिए िा० स० के ननणाय पाररिाररक
ननिृवत्त िेतन की स्िीकृवत्त में सहायक है। इनमें
महत्िपूणा ननणाय ननम्न प्रकार है:

(क) स्थायी ननयुजक्त में स्थायीकरण
के बाि सिी अचिकाररयों को नामांकन पत्र िेना
अननिाया ककया जाना चादहए।

(ख) उपविननयम (२) के अनुसार
अपिाििूत पररजस्थनतयों के ननणाय के लिए
10 All. Smt. Sheela Dubey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
659
ननम्नांककत जस्थनतयों पर विचार करना उचचत
है :-

[१] मृत अचिकार के पररिार को जो
िन जीिन बीमा, प्राबीडेन्ट फण्ड तथा मृत्यु
सजम्मलित सेिा ननिृवत्त उपािान के रूप में
प्राप्त हो चुका हो या होने िािा हो,

[२] अचिकार की मृत्यु के समय
िेतन तथा िेतन के प्रकार की अन्य उपिजब्ियों
और महंगाई ित्ते के रूप में प्राप्य िन,

[३] मृत्यु के समय छोडे गए
अचिकार के बच्चों की संख्या, उनकी आयु तथा
कक्षा जजनमें िे लशक्षा प्राप्त कर रहे हों,

[४] यदि उपरोक्त पैरा (१) के
अन्तगात प्राप्य कुि िन का योग अचिकार की
मृत्यु के समय उसे प्राप्य िेतन के आिार पर
उसके ४५ मास के िेतन से कम हो अथिा यदि
िह िन ४८ मास के िेतन से अचिक हो ककन्तु
अचिकार के बच्चे या बच्चों की लशक्षा जजसमें
प्राथलमक, माध्यलमक तथा उच्च लशक्षा जजसके
अन्तगात मेडडकि, िैज्ञाननक तथा तकनीकी
लशक्षा िी आती हो पांच िषा में पूणा न हो सकती
हो।

(िा० स० के ननणाय सं० (१५) के
आिार पर)

(ग) नामांकन पत्र चाहे िरा गया हो
या न िरा गया हो उपरोक्त अपेजन्डक्स ४१ के
पैरा ५ के अन्तगात दिए िारत सरकार के ननणाय
सं० [(६)-२ ब ३] के अनुसार मृत्यु सजम्मलित
सेिा ननिृवत्त उपािान तथा पाररिाररक पेन्शन
प्राप्त करने के लिये मृत अचिकार के पररिार
को, उसके वििागीय अचिकार / वििागाध्यक्ष
को सूचना िेजनी चादहये। इस प्रकार की सूचना
िेजने के लिये िारत सरकार ने प्रपत्र िी
ननिााररत कर दिये है। आिचयकता पडने पर
उनके अनुसार अथिा अन्य प्रकार सूचना िेजी
जा सकती है।

(घ) िा.स. के उपरोक्त ननणाय सं०
(६) -३ के अनुसार पररिार के ककसी अियस्क
सिस्य को िेय ककसी िन को उसके प्राकृनतक
का संरक्षक (नेचुरि गाजजायन) जजसमें दहन्िुओं,
िौद्िों, जैननयों, लसक्खों और ईसाइयों में पदहिे
वपता को तथा वपता के न होने पर माता को
िुगतान ककया जा सकता है। मुसिमानों में
केिि वपता को ह प्राकृनतक संरक्षक माना गया
है। यदि प्राकृनतक संरक्षक न हो तो विचिित
ननयुक्त संरक्षक को उसके प्राथाना करने (क्िेम
करने) पर िुगतान ककया जाना उचचत है।"
(emphasis by Court)

18. By the Amendment of 1988, the
whole of Regulations 6, 6-Ka and 6-Kha
were deleted, amongst others. Relevant part
of the Amendment of 1988 to the
Regulations of 1962 reads:

"ननम्नांककत
संशोचित
विननयम
जजन्हे कानपुर नगर महापालिका के प्रशासक के
कायाकाररणी संबंचित सलमनत तथा महापालिका
के अचिकारों का प्रयोग करते हुए उ0प्र0 नगर
महापालिका अचिननयम 1959 की िारा 548 (1)
के अंतगात कमाचाररयों के ननिृत िेतन तथा
सामान्य िविष्य ननचि को विननयलमत करने के
प्रयोजन से बनाया प्रकालशत ककया जाता है
660 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

संशोचित विननयम

1. विननयम-2 के उपविननयम (2) ि
(3) ननरस्त ककए गए।

2. विननयम-4 ननरस्त ककया गया।

विननयम-6 िा विननयम-6 (क) तथा
6 (ख) ननरस्त ककए गए।

4-
विननयम-7
के
उपननयम
(1),(2),(3),(4),(5),(6),(7),(8), ि (9) ननरस्त
ककए गए उनके स्थान उपननयम 1,2,3,4,5,
ननम्न प्रकार प्रत्यावपत ककए गए तथा
उपननयम 10 की क्रम प्रकार ननत्यावपत ककए
गए तथा उपननयम 10, का क्रम संख्या (6) की
गई।"

19. It was argued on behalf of the
Nigam by Mr. Yashwant Singh very
forcefully that the entitlement to receive
family pension under the Regulations of
1962 came to an end in view of the
Amendment of 1988, deleting Regulation
6. He submits that the Government Orders,
on which the petitioner relies, have been
adopted under the Service Rules of 1966,
but not under the Regulations of 1962. The
Service Rules of 1966 apply to employees
of the centralized service, serving the
Nigam,
but
not
the
non-centralized
employees, like the petitioner's father.
According
to
Mr.
Yashwant
Singh,
therefore, there is no basis for the petitioner
to urge her claim for a family pension,
which she appears to do on the basis of
Government Orders not at all applicable.

20. We assume that the petitioner
bases her claim upon the Regulations of
1962, but again it is trite for the
respondents to say that Regulation 6 of the
Regulations of 1962 has been omitted by
the Amendment of 1988, excluding from
the Regulations, the provision for grant of a
family pension to the dependents of a
deceased employee of the Nigam. The
Regulations of 1962 no doubt had made
elaborate provisions for the order of
entitlement to family pension amongst the
dependents of a deceased employee and the
petitioner's case would seem to figure
there. No person, entitled under the
Regulations of 1962 to a superior claim to
family pension, on account for the
deceased's services, ever came forward,
after the deceased's widow's demise. But,
this is all besides the point since Regulation
6 of the Regulations of 1962 has been
omitted by the Amendment of 1988.

21. What, however, seems to have
escaped attention of the respondents is the
fact that the Amendment of 1988 was not a
measure of denial of family pension
altogether. It simply introduced a new
regime
about
that
entitlement.
The
Amendment of 1988 made applicable all
provisions relating to grant of family
pension and its revision from time to time,
on the same terms as that admissible to
government employees. For the purpose,
the Amendment of 1988 provided that the
Uttar Pradesh Retirement Benefit Rules,
1961 (for short, 'the Rules of 1961'),
together with all amendments thereto made
from time to time, would apply for the
purpose of grant, regulation and rate of
family pension. The Government Orders
issued for government employees, again
from time to time, prescribing increments
to family pension etc., would ipso facto
apply to employees of the Nigam, which
means employees other than those, who are
members
of
the
centralized
service,
governed by the Service Rules of 1966.
The relevant part of the Amendment of
1988, which escaped the Nagar Ayukt's
10 All. Smt. Sheela Dubey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
661
attention,
while
passing
the
order
impugned, is that Clauses (1) to (9) of
Regulation 7, were omitted and substituted
by very different provisions, numbered as
Clauses (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5), which
read:

"1- जजन अचिकाररयों को यह
विननयम िागू है उन्हे िेय मृत्यु सम्मलित सेिा
ननिृवत्त उपािान (डेथ कम ग्रेच्युट ) अचििषाता
सेिाननिृवत्त अिाय और स्िेच्छा से सेिाननिृवत्त
तथा अन्य प्रकार से िेय पेंशन तथा पाररिाररक
पेंशन की िनरालश उत्तर प्रिेश सरकार के
कमाचाररयों पर िागू प्रकक्रया और सूत्र के
अनुसार आगलमत समंचचत िनरालश होगी। इस
संबंि में शासकीय आिेश संख्या सा 3- 116510-925-7 दिनांक 22 जून 1987 तथा उसके
बाि पाररत सरकार आिेश िागू होंगे साथ ह
प्रािेलशक सरकार ििारा समय समय पर अपने
पेंशनसा तथा पाररिाररक पेंशनसा की पेंशनो के
िनांक में राहत िेकर या अन्य प्रकार से की गई
िृद्चि का िाि िी महापालिका के पेंशनसा तथा
पाररिाररक पेंशनसा को िेय होगा इस प्रकार की
पेंशन िृद्चि का ननिाारण सरकार सियोगणक
रेडीरेकनर के आिार पर करके िुगतान ककया
जाएगा। इस संबंि में आिचयकतानुसार उत्तर
प्रिेश ररटायरमेंट बेनीकफट रूल्स 1961 तथा
उनमें ककए गए संशोिन के संबंि में जार ककए
गए सरकार आिेश िी िागू होंगे।

2- उपरोक्त उपविननयम (1) के
प्रिािी होने के पूिा राज्य सरकार द्िारा अपने
पेंशनसा ि सरकार पेंशनसा की पेंशनों के िनााँक
में राहत िेकर या अन्य प्रकार से जो िृद्चिया
की गई है िह िृद्चियां महापालिका पेंशनसा
तथा पाररिाररक पेंशनसा िी िे रहेंगी। यदि इस
प्रकार की ककसी िृद्चि का िुगतान ककसी
महापालिका पेंशनसा या पाररिाररक पेंशनसा को
संशोिन से पूिा नह ं ककया गया है या ककसी
प्रकार अचिक या कम ककया गया है तो उसका
िुगतान सरकार पद्िनत से बनी उसकी पेंशन /
पाररिाररक पेंशन के िनांक के आिार पर
सरकार द्िारा जार ककए गए सियोगणक
रेडीरेकनर के अनुसार वपछिे िुगतान को
समायोजजत करते हुए ककया जाएगा और उसका
िाि आगे की िृद्चियों में िी दिया जाएगा।

3- महापालिका के उन कमाचाररयों /
अचिकाररयों की विििाओं / वििुरों जो
आजीिन पाररिाररक पेंशन से अिी तक िंचचत
हैं उन्हें पाररिाररक पेंशन और उस िेय राहत
शासकीय आिेश संख्या सा- 3/968- 35 दिनांक
8 अगस्त 1986 तथा उसके बाि के आिेशों के
अनुसार लमिेगी।

4- उपािान पेंशन तथा पाररिाररक
पेंशन की स्िीकृनत तथा उसके िुगतान के संबंि
में राज्य सरकार द्िारा अपने कमाचाररयों के
लिए ननिााररत प्रपत्र ह प्रयोग ककए जायेंगे।

5- राज्य सरकार ने अपने पेंशनसा की
पेंशन के संराशीकरण के िन की कटौती के
संबंि में तथा उनकी और उनके पररिार के
सिस्यों को उनकी िृद्िािस्था के जीिन ननिााह
में सहायताथा जो िी सुवििाएं इस संशोिन के
प्रिािी होने के पूिा ि हैं या जो आगे स्िीकृत
करें िह सिी सुवििाएं महापालिका पेंशनसा
662 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
तथा पाररिाररक पेंशनसा को जैसी िी िशा हो,
इस उप विननयम के प्रिािी होने के दिनांक
अथिा राज्य सरकार द्िारा अपने पेंशनसा के
लिए ननिााररत दिनांक में जो िी बाि का हो उस
दिनांक से िेय होगी।"

[* extracted from copy of the
Government
Gazette,
U.P.
dated
13.08.1988].

(emphasis by Court)

22. In place of Regulation 12(2) of the
Regulations
of
1962,
the
following
Regulation was substituted:

"6- विननयम 12 का उपविननयम (2)
ननम्न प्रकार संशोचित ककया :-

(2) उपािान पेंशन तथा पाररिाररक
पेंशन के िुगतान की प्रकक्रया िह होगी जो
प्रिेशीय सरकार अपने पेंशनसा और उनके
आचश्रतों को िुगतान के संबंि में समय समय
पर ननिााररत करेगी।"

(emphasis by Court)

23. Under the Rules of 1961, the
entitlement to family pension is governed
by Rules 6 and 7, which read:

PART III

FAMILY PENSION

7. Family Pension.-(1) A family
pension not exceeding the amount specified
in sub-rule (2) below may be granted for a
period of ten years to the family of an
officer who dies, whether after retirement
or while still in service after completion of
not less than 20 years' qualifying service:

Provided that the period of
payment of family pension shall in no case
extend beyond a period of five years from
the date on which the deceased officer
reached or would have reached the age of
compulsory retirement.

Notes.-(1) Government may, in
exceptional circumstances, consider at
their discretion the award of family pension
of the family of an officer who may die
before completing 20 years' qualifying
service but after completing not less than
20 years' qualifying service.

(2) In cases where the qualifying
service is less than the prescribed minimum
the deficiency should not be condoned by
invoking the provisions of Article 423 (1) of
the Civil Service Regulations.

(3) The amount of family pension
will be

(a) in the event of death while in
service, one-half of the superannuation
pension which would have been admissible
to the officer had he retired on the date
following the date of his death, and

(b) in the event of death after
retirement,
one-half
of
the
pension
sanctioned to him at the time of retirement
:

Provided that the amount of
family pension will be subject to a
maximum of Rs. 150 per mensem and a
minimum of Rs. 30 per mensem :

Provided
further
that
the
minimum pension will not in any case,
exceed the full amount of the pension
sanctioned to the deceased officer at the
time of his retirement or, in case he dies
while in service, the pension that would
have been admissible to him if he had
retired on a superannuation pension on the
date following the date of his death.

Note.-The
amount
of
family
pension will be reduced by the amount of
pension commuted, if any, by the pensioner
10 All. Smt. Sheela Dubey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
663
before his death. For example, if the
ordinary pension was Rs. 90 per mensem
and an amount of Rs. 30 out of this had
been commuted, the amount of family
pension will be Rs. 90/2-30=Rs. 15 per
mensem.

(3) No pension shall be payable
under this Part-

(a) to a person mentioned in
clause (b) of sub-rule (4) below, unless the
pension sanctioning authority is satisfied
that such person was dependent on the
deceased officer for support;

(b) to an unmarried female
member of the family, in the event of her
marriage;

(c) to a widowed female member
of the family, in the event of her
remarriage;

(d) to a brother of the deceased
officer on his attaining the age of 18 years;
and

(e) to a person who is not a
member of the deceased officer's family.

(4) Except as may be provided by
a nomination under sub-rule (5) below:

(a) a pension sanctioned under
this Part shall be granted-

(i) to the eldest surviving widow,
if the deceased was a male officer or to the
husband, if the deceased was a female
officer;

(ii) failing the widow or husband,
as the case may be, to the eldest surviving
son;

(iii) failing (i) and (ii) above, to
the eldest surviving unmarried daughter;

(iv) these failing, to the eldest
widowed daughter; and

(b) in the event of the pension not
becoming payable under clause (a) the
pension may be granted-

(i) to the father;

(ii) failing the father, to the
mother;

(iii) failing the father and mother
both, to the eldest surviving brother below
the age of 18;

(iv) these failing, to the eldest
surviving unmarried sister;

(v) these failing (i) to (iv) above,
to the children of a predeceased son in the
order it is payable to the children of the
deceased officer under clause (a) (ii), (iii)
and (iv), above.

Note.-The
expression
"eldest
surviving widow" occurring in clause (a)
(i) above, should be construed with
reference to the seniority according to the
date of marriage with the officer and not
with reference to the age of surviving
widows.

(5) A Government Servant shall
immediately after his confirmation, make a
nomination in Form "E" indicating the
order in which a pension sanctioned under
his part should be payable to the members
of his family, and to the extent it is valid,
the pension will be payable in accordance
with such nomination provided the nominee
concerned is not ineligible, on the date on
which the pension may become payable to
him or her to receive the pension under the
provisions of sub-rule (3). In case the
nominee concerned is or has become
ineligible to receive the pension under the
said sub-rule, the pension shall be granted
to the person next lower in the order in
such nomination. The provisions of subrules (5) (b), (7) and (8) of Rule 6 shall
apply in respect of nominations under this
sub-rule.

(6) (a) A pension awarded under
this part shall not be payable to more than
one member of the deceased officer's family
at the same time.