AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :
For better appreciation of the case in hand, it is pertinent to quote the record of proceedings dated 06.05.2026. The same reads as under:
“In the instant OA, the applicant seeks following reliefs:-
“A. Direct the respondents for sanctioning family pension of the applicant from the date of death her mother Angoori Devi and pay arrears of pensions to the applicant who is survivor of her parents and unmarried daughter.
B. Pass an order of paying interest on arrears of pension payable @24% per annum with effect from 04.05.2014.
C. Pass such other and further order (s) as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”
It is the case of the applicant that she is the unmarried daughter of late Shanti Prasad Jain, who passed away on 08.12.1991.
Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant cited at para 4(i), which reads as under:–
“(i)The applicant is daughter of Late Shanti Prasad Jain who was head goods clerk in Railway department and was posted at Hathras City Railway Station, Late Shanti Prasad Jain retired on 31.08.1981 and died on 08.12.1991. After death of late Shanti Prasad Jain his wife Late Smt. Angoori Devi was sanctioned family pension vide letter no.Pu.U.20/45/15/91/Bank/Anu. Mu./133/136 dated 17.08.1994. Smt. Angoori Devi also died on 03.05.2014.”
After the death of Angoori Devi, her unmarried daughter applied for family pension, which was rejected vide order dated 06.10.2016, on the ground that the name of the applicant, Kumari Usha Jain, had not been mentioned when her mother, Angoori Devi, submitted the papers relating to family pension.
The applicant submitted her Aadhaar Card, PAN Card, Voter ID Card, and Registered Sale Deed of the house of late Shanti Prasad Jain along with the application. However, DRM (Personnel), Izzat Nagar, rejected the claim on the ground that the said documents had been prepared by the applicant herself and not by her parents. Due to the negligence of the department, the names of the family members, including that of the applicant, were not recorded, and Central Administrative Tribunalconsequently, the applicant has been facing financial hardship and is now entirely dependent upon her brother.
Thereafter, the applicant instituted a civil suit for declaration before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gautam Budh Nagar, seeking recognition and legitimacy of her claim through a judgment of the competent court. The learned Civil Court, vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.2018 passed in Civil Suit No. 440/2017, decreed the suit in favour of the applicant and granted a declaration accordingly.
It is the case of the applicant that she has no source of income and is fully dependent upon her brother. It is further submitted that the applicant is a heart patient and has already crossed the age of 57 years. During the lifetime of her parents, she was wholly dependent upon them.
Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the provisions contained in the Office Memorandum dated 11.09.2013 of Ministry Letter No. Ref. (E) III/2007 P.N. 1/5 dated 20.10.2011, contending that the applicant is entitled for getting to family pension. In this regard, the applicant submitted a representation dated 07.09.2024 to the respondents requesting release family pension of her deceased father, late Shanti Prasad Jain.
It is further submitted that the applicant, through counsel, also served a legal notice dated 09.09.2024 upon the respondents for sanctioning family pension in favour of the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention to the Office Memorandum dated 11.07.2013, which reads as under:–
Ne. 1/13/09-P&PW (E)
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, P.G. & Pensions
Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare
3rd Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan,
Khan Market, New Delhi, the 11th September, 2013.
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Sub: Eligibility of widowed/divorced daughters for grant of family pension - clarification regarding
Provision for grant of family pension to a widowed/divorced daughter beyond the age of 25 years has been made vide OM dated 30.08.2004. This provision has been included in clause (in) of sub-rule 54 (6) of the CCS (Pension), Rules, 1972. For settlement of old cases, it was clarified, vide OM dated 28.04.2011, that the family pension may be granted to eligible seidowed/divorced daughters with effect the fos 2004, in case the death of the Govt. Servant/pensioner occurred before this Central Administrative Tribunaldate.
2.This Department has been receiving communications from various Ministries/ Departments seeking clarification regarding eligibility of a daughter who became widowed/divorced after the death of the employee/pensioner.
3 As indicated in Rule 54(8) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the turn of unmarried children below 25 years of age comes after the death or remarriage of their mother/father, i.c.. the pensioner and his/her spouse. Thereafter, the family pension is payable to the disabled children for life and then to the unmarried/widowed/divorced daughters above the age of 25 years.
4.It is clarified that the family pension is payable to the children as they are considered to be dependent on the Government servant/pensioner or his/her spouse. A child who is not earning equal to or more than the sum of minimum family pension and dearness relief thereon is considered to be dependent on his/her parents. Therefore, only those children who are dependent and meet other conditions of eligibility for family pension at the time of death of the Government servant or his/her spouse, whichever is later, are eligible for family pension. If two or more children are eligible for family pension at that time, family pension will be payable to each child on his/her turn provided he/she is still eligible for family pension when the turn comes. Similarly, family pension to a widowed/divorced daughter is payable provided she fulfils all eligibility conditions at the time of death/ineligibility of her parents and on the date her turn to receive family pension comes.
5.As regards opening of old cases, a daughter if eligible, as explained in the preceding paragraph, may be granted family pension with effect from 30th August, 2004. The position is illustrated through an example. Shri A, a pensioner, died in 1986. He was survived by his wife, Smt. B, a son Shri C and daughter, Kumari D, the daughter being the younger. Kumari D married in 1990 and got widowed in 1996. Smt. B died in 2001. Thereafter, Shri C was getting family pension, being disabled, and died in 2003. Thereafter, the family pension was stopped as Kumari D was not eligible for it at that time. She applied for family pension on the basis of O.M., dated 30th August, 2004. Since she was a widow and had no independent source of income at the time of death of her mother and on the date her turn came, she may be granted family pension 7 family pension will continue only till she rema ties or starts earning her livelihood equal to or more than the sum of minimum family pension and dearness relief thereon.
6.This is only a clarification and the entitlement of widowed/divorced daughters would continue to be determined in terms of O.M.. dated 25/30th August, 2004, read with O.M., dated 6. 28.4.2011.
(D.K. Solanki) Under Secretary to the Government of India”
List on 25.05.2026 as Part-heard.”
The applicant is the daughter of Late Shanti Prasad Jain, who was working as Head Goods Clerk in the Railways at Hathras City Railway Station. He retired on 31.08.1981 and died on 08.12.1991. After his death, his wife, Late Smt. Angoori Devi, was sanctioned family pension vide letter dated 17.03.1994 and continued to receive the same through Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ghaziabad, till her death on 03.05.2014.
After the death of her mother, the applicant, being unmarried, applied for family pension. Her claim was rejected by the DRM (Personnel), Izzat Nagar, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh vide order dated 06.10.2016 on the ground that her name had not been mentioned in the pension papers submitted by her mother.
The applicant produced her Aadhaar Card, PAN Card, Voter ID and the registered sale deed of the house of late Shanti Prasad Jain, but the same were not accepted by the respondents on the ground that these documents had been prepared by the applicant herself. She claims that the omission of her name in the family particulars was attributable to the department and that she has since been dependent upon her brother.
The applicant thereafter instituted Civil Suit No.440/2017 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gautam Budh Nagar, seeking declaration of her status and for proving the legitimacy of her claim. The suit was decided on 30.11.2018, declaring her to be the daughter of Late Shanti Prasad Jain and Late Smt. Angoori Devi. Despite the said declaration, according to the applicant, her claim for family pension was not accepted by the respondents.
The applicant asserts that she has no independent source of income, has remained unmarried, and is dependent upon her brother. She relies upon the applicable provisions governing family pension to unmarried daughters, particularly Rule 75(6) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, and the OM dated 11.09.2013 issued by the Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare. The applicant further places reliance upon further reliance has been placed upon Rule 54(8) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, contending that an unmarried daughter is entitled to family pension of her deceased father.
After pursuing the matter further, the applicant submitted a representation dated 07.09.2024and also served a legal notice dated 09.09.2024 seeking sanction and release of family pension. The respondents thereafter rejected her claim, inter alia, disputing that her mother had been receiving family pension, which assertion is specifically denied by the applicant.
The applicant has also relied upon the decision rendered by the Chennai Bench of this Tribunal in Dhatchayani v. Ministry of Railways, O.A. No.310/0098/2021, decided on 11.03.2022 wherein the respondents were directed for sanctioning and releasing family pension to an unmarried daughter of a railway employee.
In view of the above, the applicant seeks a direction to to the respondents to sanction and release family pension in her favour from the date of death of her mother, i.e. 03.05.2014, along with consequential arrears and interest thereon.
Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that the same is not maintainable for non-joinder/mis-joinder of necessary parties. It was further contended that the applicant’s father, Late Shanti Prasad Jain, was not a pensioner, having not opted for pension and being covered under the contributory scheme; consequently, after his death, his widow, Smt. Angoori Devi, was granted ex-gratia payment w.e.f. 08.12.1991and not family pension, and the applicant cannot claim family pension on that basis.
Reliance was placed upon the Railway Board’s letter dated 30.06.1988 and subsequent clarification dated 20.01.2009, according to which ex-gratia payment to dependent children of such employees was admissible only subject to the prescribed conditions and up to the age ofCentral Administrative Tribunal 25 years.
Learned counsel further submitted that the OM dated 11.09.2013 and Railway Board letter dated 20.10.2011, relied upon by the applicant, pertain to dependants of pensionable employees and are, therefore, inapplicable to the present case.
Learned counsel for the respondents also disputed the applicant’s claim of being the daughter of Late Shanti Prasad Jain, pointing out that in the available 1980 declaration form, her name does not find mention, and relied upon the said document in support of their contention. The relevant portion of the said declaration form reads as under:
In view of the aforesaid it was urged that the claim is devoid of merit and the O.A. deserves to be dismissed.
Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
4. ANALYSIS :
Upon consideration of the pleadings and the material available on record, the principal issue which arises for determination is whether the applicant is entitled to family pension as an unmarried daughter of Late Shanti Prasad Jain. For determination of the said issue, it is necessary to examine the nature of the benefit sanctioned to the deceased employee’s family, the applicable pensionary scheme and rules, and whether the applicant fulfils the conditions prescribed for grant of family pension.
The respondents have specifically pleaded that Late Shanti Prasad Jain had not opted for pension and was covered under the contributory scheme. It is their case that, consequent upon his retirement and death, his widow, Smt. Angoori Devi, was paid ex-gratia, and not family pension. The respondents have relied upon the Railway Board’s letter dated 30.06.1988 and the subsequent clarification dated 20.01.2009 in support of the aforesaid contention. According to the respondents, under the said scheme, the benefit payable to eligible dependent children wasCentral Administrative Tribunal subject to the conditions prescribed therein, including the age limit of 25 years. The aforesaid contention, however, is required to be examined in the light of the material available on record, particularly the nature of the benefit sanctioned and paid to the widow of Late Shanti Prasad Jain.
The applicant has relied upon the fact that, after the death of Late Shanti Prasad Jain, her mother, Late Smt. Angoori Devi, was sanctioned and continued to receive the benefit described in the relevant record as family pension, and has, on that basis, relied upon Rule 75 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 and the Office Memorandum dated 11.09.2013. The respondents, however, dispute the nature of the said benefit and contend that the same was ex-gratia payment under the contributory scheme applicable to the deceased employee. The entitlement of the applicant, therefore, requires examination in the light of the applicable pensionary scheme and the nature of the benefit actually sanctioned and paid to her mother.
We have also considered the applicant’s reliance upon the judgment of the Chennai Bench in Dhatchayani v. Ministry of Railways (supra). The said decision is distinguishable on facts to the extent that, in Dhatchayani (supra), the deceased Railway employee was a pensioner and the claim was examined in the context of family pension payable under Rule 75(6) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. In theCentral Administrative Tribunal present case, the respondents have disputed the pensionary status of Late Shanti Prasad Jain and have contended that the benefit received by his widow was ex-gratia under the contributory scheme. At the same time, the material available on record indicates that, after the death of Late Shanti Prasad Jain, his wife, Late Smt. Angoori Devi, was sanctioned the benefit described as family pension vide letter dated 17.03.1994 and continued to receive the same till her death on 03.05.2014. The nature of the said benefit, therefore, assumes significance in determining the applicant’s entitlement. It is not disputed that the applicant is the daughter of Late Shanti Prasad Jain and Late Smt. Angoori Devi. The judgment dated 30.11.2018 passed in Civil Suit No.440/2017 also bears upon the applicant’s status as their daughter. The fact that her name was not reflected in the declaration form of 1980 may be relevant for examining the service records, but the same cannot, by itself, override the subsequent declaration of relationship by a competent Civil Court. The applicant’s entitlement, therefore, has to be examined in the light of the applicable pensionary rules and the conditions governing family pension.
We are also conscious of the applicant’s contention that her mother was receiving family pension and that the departmental record did not correctly reflect all family members. The respondents, on the other hand,Central Administrative Tribunal have consistently submitted that the benefit paid to the widow was ex-gratia under the scheme applicable to contributory retirees. However, the record before us also indicates that the applicant’s mother was in fact sanctioned and paid the said benefit after the death of Late Shanti Prasad Jain, and the applicant has relied upon the said payment as the basis of her claim. Therefore, the entitlement of the applicant cannot be determined merely on the nomenclature of the benefit received by her mother, but has to be examined in the light of the applicable rules governing family pension and the status of the applicant as an unmarried daughter.
The relevant provisions governing family pension also recognize the entitlement of an unmarried daughter, subject to fulfilment of the conditions prescribed under the applicable pension rules. The relevant provision under Rule 50 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021, which is relied upon for the purpose of examining the conditions applicable to an unmarried daughter, reads as under:—
“Rule 50. of Family Pension.- (1) Where a Government servant dies,- (i) after completion of one year of continuous service; or Central Administrative Tribunal(ii) before completion of one year of continuous service, provided the deceased Government servant concerned immediately prior to his appointment to the service or post was examined by the appropriate medical authority and declared fit by that authority for Government service; or
(iii)after retirement from service and was on the date of death in receipt of a pension, or compassionate allowance, referred to in these rules, the family of the deceased shall be entitled to a family pension from the date following the date of death of the Government servant or the retired Government servant, as the case may be.
(9)(a) If the deceased Government servant or the pensioner is not survived by a widow or widower or if the widow or widower dies or ceases to be eligible for family pension, family pension at the rate specified in sub-rule (2) shall be payable to the child or children who fulfil the following conditions:
(ii)In the case of a daughter (other than a daughter suffering from a mental or physical disability) (including adopted daughter, step daughter and daughter born after retirement of the pensioner) unmarried or widowed or divorced and not earning her livelihood.”
In Civil Appeal No. 10672 of 2016, Mala Devi v. Union of India & Ors., decided on 16.07.2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:
“9.At the outset, we refer to the ratio in the case of Prabhavati Devi v. Union of India & Ors.AIR 1996 SC 752whereby this Court had extended the relief of family pension of the widow of the deceased railway servant, who had died in harness. It was held that the orders of the Tribunal to deny family pension to the widow and children of the deceased were unsustainable as the deceased had acquired the temporary status and was already working at his regular post at the time of his death. In the present case however, the deceased was absorbed in service as a substitute in 1986, and served for 9 years 8 months and 26 days, just 3 months short of completing the threshold of a decade in service. After one year of continuous service, clearing his medical examination and screening, and upon being subsequently deputed on a different post, on the instructions of Dy. CYM, Garhara, he acquired the status of a temporary railway servant for the purposes of the Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993 and hence became entitled to the benefit of family pension, as any other temporary railway servant. Hence, in light of the decision in Prabhavati Devi (supra), the petitioner is certainly entitled for grant of family pension.
10.Rule 75 of Railway Pension Rules, 1993, makes it further clear that the qualifying service for a temporary railway servant to be entitled for the grant of benefit of family pension is a continuous service of one year. More so, this benefit of family pension is accrued to the family of the deceased railway servant who died in harness after completion of one year of continuous service, without any discrimination, whether the post was temporary or had been regularized. On this ground alone, the denial of family pension accrued to the Appellant is unjustifiable.
11.We have further carefully examined the facts, and legal principles applicable in the present case, and we find that the argument canvassed by the Respondents in depriving the Appellant of family pension from her deceased husband for not completing 10 years of qualifying service by falling short of hardly 3 months, is not in congruence with the legislative intent of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual & the Railway Pension Rules, 1993. The salutary purpose of the rules thereunder is to extend the benefit of family pension to the families of those servants who have served for a considerable strength of time. The present case is not a case of a casual labourer being simply accorded a temporary status, without any scrutiny or examination as cautioned against in Clause 4.4. of the Master Circular issued by the Ministry of Railways. The said Circular also gives a clear mandate in clause 5.1 that substitutes who have acquired temporary status were to be screened by a Screening Committee, a stage which was admittedly passed by the deceased. It is an admitted factum that the deceased had reached the necessary stage of scrutiny/screening for regularization of the post, and had been carrying out his services, literally till his last breath.
12.In the light of above statutory provisions governing the field, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Appellant is entitled for grant of family pension along with arrears of family pension.
13.For the purpose of computation of family pension in the present case, the family pension qua the deceased shall be governed as per Rule 75 r/w Rule 18(3) Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993 which extends benefit of family pension and death gratuity in the event of death in harness of a temporary railway servant on the same scale of a temporary railway servant. The Respondents shall calculate the arrears of family pension and shall pay the arrears as well as shall pay regular family pension to the Appellant within a period of four months.
14.Resultantly, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the plight of the Appellant who has been pursuing the litigation seeking family pension since 2014, and the salient purpose of a family pension to serve dependents tide over the crisis, we further deem it appropriate exercise of our power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, and award ex-gratia amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the Appellant.
15.In light thereof, the Appeal is allowed. The Impugned Order dated 12.05.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna, and the Order dated 23.12.2015 passed by the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Central Administrative TribunalPatna, are set aside. The Respondents are directed to ensure compliance within four months. Applications if any, stand disposed of.”
It is also borne out from the record that the applicant had raised her claim before the respondents in the year 2016, which was duly considered and rejected. The present proceedings have been instituted after a considerable lapse of time and the applicant has not furnished any satisfactory explanation for the intervening delay. However, the subsequent representation and legal notice cannot, by themselves, be treated as creating a fresh right to family pension. At the same time, where the applicant otherwise fulfils the conditions of eligibility prescribed under the applicable Family Pension Rules, the earlier rejection of her claim or the delay in approaching the Tribunal cannot, by itself, operate to extinguish a statutory entitlement. The question of delay is, therefore, required to be considered subject to the applicant’s substantive entitlement under the applicable rules. We are of the view that pension is not a bounty but a benefit governed by the applicable statutory rules and conditions
Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. 7667 of 2025, Kulsum Nisha v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2026 INSC 617, decided in 2026, held as under:
“The solitary issue which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether exclusion of the married daughter from the definition of ‘family’ as defined under Clause 2(p) of the 2016 Order and as referred to in Paragraph (IV)10 of the G.O. is constitutionally sustainable.
A Constitution Bench of this Court (Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia & Ors. vs. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar & Ors., 1958 SCC OnLine SC 6) after taking note of a decision rendered by seven Judge Bench of this Court (Budhan Choudhry vs. State of Bihar & Ors.; (1954) 2 SCC 791) has held that Article 14 of the Constitution forbids class legislation, but permits reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation. A classification, however, must satisfy two conditions, firstly, it must be founded upon an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group, and secondly the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. The doctrine of equality has, over time, evolved beyond a narrow classification test. State action, which is arbitrary, irrational, capricious, or founded on impermissible stereotypes is equally vulnerable to challenge under Article 14(Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. Bombay Environmental Action Group & Ors., (2006) 3 SCC 434; A.P. Dairy Development Corporation Federation vs. B. Narasimha Reddy, (2011) 9 SCC 286; Shayara Bano vs. Union of India & Ors., (2017) 9 SCC 1; K.S. Puttuswamy & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors., (2017) 10 SCC 1; Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs. Union of India & Anr., (2018) 11 SCC 1 )
Examined on the touchstone of these principles, the exclusion of a married daughter from the definition of “family” cannot be sustained. The object of allotment under the dependent quota is to provide immediate succour to the family of a deceased dealer facing financial hardship. The relevant considerations are dependency, financial need, residence, and the ability of the applicant to discharge the obligations attached to the dealership. Marital status bears no rational nexus to any of these considerations. The impugned provision proceeds on the assumption that upon marriage a daughter ceases to be a member of, or dependent upon, her parental family. Such an assumption is constitutionally impermissible. Marriage neither extinguishes the bond between a daughter and her parental family nor furnishes a valid basis to presume absence of dependency. Contemporary social realities demonstrate that many married daughters continue to reside with, support, or remain dependent upon their parents. Equally, there may be sons who are not dependent upon the family despite being included within the definition. Dependency is a question of fact and cannot be conclusively determined by reference to marital status alone.
Significantly, the scheme does not exclude a married son from consideration. A son continues to remain within the fold of the family irrespective of his martial status, whereas a daughter is excluded solely because she is married. The distinction is founded upon a gender-based stereotype that a daughter, upon marriage, becomes a member of another family and loses all ties with her natal family. Such a presumption is incompatible with the constitutional guarantee of equality and perpetuates historical notions of gender inequality which the Constitution seeks to eradicate.
The submission of the State that a married daughter may not satisfy the requirement of local residence is equally untenable. Residence constitutes an independent eligibility criterion under Paragraph IV(5) of the G.O. Whether an applicant satisfies that requirement must be determined on the facts of each case. A blanket exclusion of all married daughters cannot be justified on the speculative assumption that every married daughter necessarily resides elsewhere. Constitutional adjudication cannot be founded on presumptions that are overbroad and disconnected from lived realities.
The purpose of the dependent quota is neither to create a right of succession or inheritance in the dealership nor a reward for lineage. The object is limited and specific: to provide immediate financial relief to the dependent family of a deceased dealer and to ensure continuity in the public distribution system. Once dependency is accepted as the governing criterion, exclusion of a married daughter solely on account of her marital status becomes wholly irrational and self-defeating.
We are, therefore, of the considered view that the exclusion of married daughters from the definition of “family” fails the test of reasonable classification and is manifestly arbitrary. The distinction created by Paragraph IV(10) of the G.O. lacks any intelligible differentia having a rational nexus with the object of the scheme. The exclusion is founded solely upon marital status and gender stereotypes and consequently, violates Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution of India.
THE DOCTRINE OF PURPOSIVE CONSTRUCTION Now, we advert to the issue whether the words “unmarried,
legally separated and widowed daughters” are required to be struck down or can be read in a manner so as to include married daughters. The literal meaning of aforesaid words employed in Clause 2(p) of the 2016 Order produces a result which is incompatible with constitutional guarantees of equality and non- discrimination. The principle of purposive construction is based on the understanding that the Court is supposed to attach that meaning to a provision which serves the purpose behind it, the basic approach being to ascertain is what the provision is designed to accomplish. When the language of an enactment is reasonably capable of more than one meaning, the Court is not merely permitted but is obliged to prefer that construction which promotes the provision and avoids a result that would be arbitrary or unjust. The Court should adopt purposive interpretation in cases where the literal interpretation may not serve the purpose or may lead to absurdity(Shailesh Dhairyawan v. Mohan Balkrishan Lulla; (2016) 3 SCC 619 ).
25.Bearing in mind the object of the provision, that is to provide immediate financial relief to the dependent family of the deceased dealer and to ensure continuity of public distribution system, on purposive interpretation, the words “unmarried, legally separated and widowed daughters” in Clause 2(p) of 2016 Order, have to be read so as to include married daughters provided they fulfil other eligibility conditions laid down in G.O. for the following reasons: -
(i)The words “unmarried, legally separated and widowed daughters” illustrate the specific categories of daughters who are expressly included. There is no express language of exclusion. The enumeration is a description of class of daughters who by reason of remaining in or returning to natal household, are most visibly placed in position of dependency. The absence of exclusionary language in respect of married daughters reflects an illustrative and not exhaustive character of enumeration;
(ii)The 2016 Order in Clause 2(p) itself defines one of the categories of family members as “Adult children who are fully dependent on the head of the family”, without any qualification of marital status or gender.
(iii)The object of dependent quota is unambiguously Central Administrative Tribunalwelfare oriented, that is to provide for immediate financial relief to dependent family member of deceased dealer and to ensure continuity of public distribution system. Dependency and not the marital status is the governing criteria of the G.O.
(iv)The descriptive categories of daughters in Clause 2(p) of 2016 Order whether unmarried, legally separated or widowed share a common characteristic that is they remain or have returned to their natal family. They are united by functional criteria of dependency. A married daughter who has not departed from the natal household and is dependent upon it, shares the same functional characteristic.
(v)The submission that a married daughter necessarily fails to satisfy the local residence requirement and therefore cannot be a dependent, needs a factual inquiry to be made in every case. A blanket exclusion of all married daughters on such a speculative presumption is unjustified and is constitutionally untenable.
(vi)To read the words “unmarried, legally separated and widowed daughters” in Clause 2(p) of 2016 Order would produce a result which is inconsistent with constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 15(1) as the same would amount to exclusion of a married daughter on a gender-based stereotype which is constitutionally impermissible.
(vii)The exclusion of married daughter who is dependent upon the deceased dealer and resides with the family and is Central Administrative Tribunala capable of running the fair price shop would directly frustrate the purpose of the provision.
To sum up, the expression “daughter” in Clause 2(p) of 2016 Order, has to be read to include a married daughter provided she establishes the dependency on the deceased dealer and satisfies all other eligibility conditions prescribed under the G.O. including the requirement of local residence.
26.For the foregoing reasons, on a purposive construction of Clause 2(p) of 2016 Order, we hold that the expression “daughters” used in the aforesaid provision includes a married daughter who furnishes a dependency certificate
along with No Objection Certificates from other adult family members of the deceased dealer and is a local resident and satisfies all other eligibility conditions prescribed in the G.O. The provision, so construed, would neither suffer from any invalidity nor any constitutional infirmity. It is saved by the very meaning it bears when understood in the light of its purpose.
We are in agreement with the view taken in Vimla Srivastava (supra) by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court and the decisions of the Bombay, Karnataka and Calcutta High Courts which have recognised the principle that marital status cannot constitute a valid ground for denying the benefit of a welfare measure to an otherwise eligible daughter. To the extent the contrary view expressed in Saida Begum and Smt. Kusumlata (supra), does not lay down the correct law and stand overruled.
CONCLUSION
In the present case, the material on record establishes that the appellant continued to reside in the same village even after her marriage and actively assisted her mother in the operation of the fair price shop. The appellant upon her mother’s demise, assumed responsibility for maintaining her sisters, including a visually impaired sister. The authorities have not disputed these factual assertions. The sole ground on which her application was rejected was that she is a married daughter. Once that ground is held to be constitutionally invalid, no impediment survives to the grant of relief in her favour.”
Nomination does not confer absolute ownership. In Shipra Sengupta v. Mridul Sengupta [(2009) 10 SCC 680], it has been held that the position of nomination is no longer res integra and that the nominee is entitled to receive the benefit, but the amount so received is to be distributed according to the laws of succession among the legal heirs. Thus, mere absence of the applicant’s name in the nomination cannot, by itself, defeat her otherwise valid claim to family pension under the applicable rules.
In Vishin Khanchandani v. Vidya Khanchandani [AIR 2000 SC 747], a similar interpretation was given to the role of a nominee in the context of Section 6 of the Government Savings Certificate Act, 1956. Thus, notwithstanding the fact that the provisions relating to nomination under different statutes, including those governing insurance, government savings and co-operative societies, may be worded differently, the settled legal position is that a nominee acts essentially as a trustee and that nomination does not confer any right of testamentary succession upon the nominee. Accordingly, the absence of the applicant’s name in the nomination cannot, by itself, operate to defeat her substantive claim to family pension, if otherwise found eligible under the applicable rules. (Ref:“Nomination process therefore does not override the succession laws.” Civil Appeal No. 7107 OF 2017 –Shakti Yezdani & Anr. vs. Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar & Ors. decided on December 14, 2023.
The rejection of family pension to the unmarried daughter on the ground that her name did not figure in the nomination made by her late father cannot, by itself, be a sole ground to deny the benefit of a beneficial and social welfare measure.
There is no basis under law or the applicable Rules to hold that family pension can be rejected solely on the ground that the name of the applicant did not appear in the service records.
Hence, an unmarried daughter who comes under Rules subject to fulfilling the other eligible conditions under the Family Pensions Rules is entitled to a family pension.
5. CONCLUSION :
In view of the aforesaid analysis, the Original Application is allowed and the action of the respondents in denying the family pension to the unmarried daughter is quashed and set aside.
The respondents are directed to sanction and release family pension in favour of the applicant with effect from the date of death of her mother, Late Smt. Angoori Devi, i.e. 03.05.2014, along with the consequential arrears, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In the event of failure to comply with the aforesaid direction within the stipulated period, the applicant shall be entitled to interest at GPF rates on the arrears for the period beyond three month
Pending M.A.(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.