Lekhakumari.N vs Union Of India & Ors.

The applicant is the daughter of late M.K.Narayanan and late B.Leela, both were Postmasters in the Postal Department. Shri.M.K.Narayanan had retired on superannuation on 31.05.1994 and passed away on 23.04.2019. Smt.B.Leela had retired as Postmistress on 31.12.1995 and died on 12.12.2024. Applicant is one of the four children of the couple, who is a divorcee. The applicant claims that she was divorced under a decree dated 29.11.2003 issued by the Family Court, Thrissur.

It is submitted that she was a dependent on her mother. She was also taking care of the mother who had been laid up for 8 years. Thus, on 07.10.2021, mother addressed the third respondent through Annexure A-2 communication stating that her daughter Smt.Lekha Kumari.N, the applicant, is her sole caretaker; 'she is a divorcee and is fully dependent on her as she has no job/income.' Further, it is stated that 'she has four children; the eldest and second daughters are married and settled; the son is also married and settled'. Thus, she requested the third respondent to add the name of Smt.Lekha Kumari.N in her PPO as a dependent divorced daughter. This communication bears the left-hand thumb impression of Smt.Leela B, attested by Dr.Ambily B, Consultant in Anaesthestology of General Hospital, Ernakulam. On the same day, the applicant also submitted a similar request to the third respondent requesting to add her name in the PPO of the mother. She has stated that the mother is bedridden and totally dependent on her for her routine needs, she had devoted herself to look after the aged parents and has no source of job/income.

After the death of the mother, she moved the third respondent again with Annexure A-4 application with all necessary documents like copy of application letters submitted to the 3^rd respondent, copy of the PPO of the mother, proof of her marital status (Divorce Decree/Certificate), the death certificate of her father and the Office Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions and requested to take necessary steps to include her name in the PPO as she is eligible for family pension.

In response to Annexure A-4, the applicant received Annexure A-5 communication from the Deputy Superintendent of Post Offices, Ernakulam Division stating that, as per their office records, no such communication dated 07.10.2021 was seen to have been received at the office. For early settlement of the grievance, she was asked to submit the request letter from the PPO holder, photocopy of the PPO, and the divorce decree received from the Family Court. She sent the response through Annexure A 6 dated 29.12.2024 mentioning about Annexures A-2 and A-3. She also stated that 'for the past seven years she has been the sole caregiver for her mother and was also responsible for caring for her late father during his last years. This had required her to abandon her employment and devote herself fully to their care, leaving her without any source of income'. Further, it is submitted that all siblings are her elders and live away from home. Then, she gave Annexure A-7 reminder, following which she received Annexure A-8 communication from the Deputy Superintendent of Post Offices asking to submit the following necessary documents :-

It is further submitted that her only daughter is working as a Customer Service Associate in South Indian Bank, drawing a basic salary of Rs.31,370/-. For the purpose of seeking family pension, she approached the Tahsildar of Kanayannoor Taluk who issued Annexure A-9 income certificate showing the family income of Rs.3,76,440/-. She has also produced her daughter's payslip for the month of January 2025 and submits that Annexure A-9 does not reflect her individual income. Now, by Annexure A-1 communication dated 19.05.2025, her request for dependent family pension stands rejected on the ground that her income far exceeds the required minimum for family pension, i.e., Rs.9000/- plus DA, whereas in her case, it is Rs.31,370/- per month.

Aggrieved by the same, the applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking to call for the entire records relating to Annexure A1 to Annexure A10 and to quash Annexure A-1, to declare that the applicant is entitled to be included for family pension or dependant pension in her mother's PPO and to pass other necessary orders.

According to the applicant, Annexure A-1 order is illegal, arbitrary and violative of all canons of law. Earlier, when she had applied for income certificate, the Tahsildar had issued a certificate including her mother's pension also. From Annexure A-9, it is clear that the income certificate includes the income of all those who are part of the family. Taking the salary of the daughter, which is not the annual income of the applicant, the 4^th respondent has reckoned it as the income of the applicant. Such a stand is reeked with malafide, highly illegal, arbitrary and tainted.

Later, the applicant produced, along with M.A. 906/2025, another income certificate dated 24.08.2025 issued by the Tahsildar showing the annual income of the applicant as Rs.96000/-.

The third respondent filed a reply for and on behalf of all the respondents, denying the allegations in the Original Application. He has reiterated that Annexures A2 and A-3 were not received by the office. Even though she had averred that she is a divorcee, she has not produced the judgment of the competent Court, and the respondents are not aware whether she is getting maintenance from her divorced husband.

Further, it is submitted that Annexure A-1 order, issued after going through the records, is within the ambit of law prevailing on the subject. Annexure A-9 indicates that the applicant has an annual income of Rs.3,76,440/-, i.e., an average of Rs.31,370/- per month, which exceeds the maximum for considering grant of family pension. On receipt of the application from the applicant for family pension, respondent no.3 deputed respondent no.4 to enquire and submit a report, who gave Annexure R-1 report. It has come out from the report that the applicant was divorced on 29.11.2003 and has not re-married. She is the youngest among four siblings who are as follows:-

It also came out that the applicant is residing in a house situated in 22 cents of land which belonged to Smt.B.Leela. This property has not yet been partitioned among the legal heirs, that there was some family issues existing regarding the partition of the property, so that their consent letter for processing the application for family pension could not be obtained.

According to the respondents, the eligibility of widowed/divorced daughters for grant of family pension is processed based on the directions issued in Annexure R-2 O.M.

According to the respondents, if the applicant was dependent on the mother immediately after obtaining divorce, an application for including her name in the PPO would have been submitted. Annexure A-2 is seen drawn while Smt.B.Leela was bedridden due to dementia, and the same cannot be treated as a nomination or a will expressed by Smt.B.Leela, the mother of the applicant. Annexure A-3 was submitted long after her divorce. There is no document to show that she was depended on her mother immediately after divorce. Moreover, the income as per Annexure A-9 far exceeds the maximum.

Referring to Annexure M.A-1 income certificate produced on subsequent point of time, it is submitted that this does not stand in conformity with her statement that she has no income at all.

It is also submitted that the applicant is a Lawyer. Her daughter is employed in South Indian Bank; the O.A. has been filed on experimental basis and is sought to be dismissed.

Heard Shri.Shafik M.Abdulkhadir, learned Counsel for the applicant and Shri.S.R.K.Prathap, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

Referring to Annexure R1 report of the 4^th respondent, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that other siblings of the applicant are well settled. Though she was a lawyer, she had stopped practice long back. She was taking care of the parents and was also dependent on them.

It is submitted that there is absolutely nothing to doubt Annexures A2 and A-3; Annexure A-2 has been attested by a Gazetted Officer and its genuineness cannot be doubted. Similarly, an inference based on Annexure A-9, which is the certificate showing the income of the family, should not be used for denying her legitimate claim. Her income cannot be clubbed with the income of the daughter. According to the learned counsel, there is absolutely no mandate that the consent letters should be obtained from the siblings.

On the other hand, according to the learned Standing Counsel, such a consent letter is necessary for processing the claim of the applicant. There is no proper averment that she was dependent on the mother nor there is any proof. The name of the applicant was not incorporated in the PPO as required under the Rules. There is also no material to show that she is not getting any maintenance from the former husband.

Admittedly, the applicant is the youngest daughter of late N.K.Narayanan and late B. Leela, both were employed in the Postal Department. They had retired from service on 31.05.1994 and 31.12.1995 respectively and then passed away in 2019 and 2024 respectively. There is also no serious dispute that the applicant is a divorcee. Though she was a lawyer, it is averred that she had stopped practice long back and was dependent on her parents and, of late, her mother, who passed away on 12.12.2024.

Then she approached the respondents for granting dependent family pension as provided under Rule 50 (9)(a)(ii) of the CCS Pension Rules, 2021, which reads thus:

That means, a divorced daughter of a family pensioner not earning her livelihood is entitled to get family pension as provided under sub-rule (9)(a)(ii) of Rule 50 of the CCS (Pension) Rules.

Here, while Annexures A2 and A-3 have been projected by the applicant to say that, much before the death of the mother, both the mother as well as the applicant had alerted the third respondent and had requested for incorporating her name in the PPO with the intention of granting her dependent family pension.

The respondents have denied receipt of such a communication. But the applicant has not produced any acknowledgment proving that such communications were actually delivered to the 3^rd respondent. But for two reasons, this Tribunal is unable to disbelieve the version of the applicant.

Firstly, as indicated earlier, Annexure A-2 contains the left-hand thumb impression of the late mother given on 07.10.2021 attested by a gazetted officer. For the reason that the applicant did not produce evidence proving tendering of the document, in my opinion, the genuineness of that communication cannot be doubted.

Secondly and more importantly, even assuming that Annexures A-2 and 3 were not given as claimed by the applicant, that is not a ground to reject the claim of the applicant outright, if it is otherwise genuine. In this connection O.M dated 22.06.2010 extracted at page 159 of Swamy's Pension Compilation, 2023 edition is required to be reproduced.

That means such a technical objection cannot be raised even assuming that such formal requests were not given by the family pensioner.

Turning to the entitlement also, Annexure A-1 has been issued on the premise that the monthly income of the family was shown as Rs.31,370/- in contrast to the mandate that it should be below the minimum family pension of Rs.9000 + DA. In this connection, Annexure A-9 cannot reflect the actual income of the applicant. It was issued in tune with Annexure A-10 payslip of the daughter who is employed as a Customer Service Associate/Clerk in the South Indian Bank. Dehors this component, the income of the daughter, the income of the applicant is practically nil. However, from Annexure M.A R-1 and M.A R-2, it is certain that Annexure M.A-1 certificate was issued basing on the income of the applicant shown in the ration card.

Here what is important is whether the applicant has individual source of livelihood which should not exceed the benchmark sum of Rs.9000/- + DA per mensem. What is shown in Annexure A-9 is the family income. From Annexure A10, it is obvious that the family income was reckoned basing on Annexure A-10. Similarly, Annexure M.A1 certificate was later issued based on the entry in the ration card, Rs.8000/- per mensem.

In other words, Annexure M.A-1 certificate appears to be the correct index of the individual income of the applicant. It is 96,000/-a year, which is below the minimum family pension payable to a pensioner.

Similarly, there is no dispute on the marital status of the applicant. She is a divorcee. Divorce was effected during the lifetime of both the parents. There is no case that she has since been married.

Taking cue from the contention of the learned Standing Counsel, the Tribunal directed, in the absence of proving payment of maintenance from the former husband, to file an affidavit. Thus the applicant has filed an affidavit stating that, 'though the decree dated 29.11.2003 had directed the respondent to return Rs.10,000/- and value of the Gold Ornaments to the Tune of Rs.1,35,000/-, no amount has been returned as per the said decree by Sri.C.K.Rajesh so far. I have not been allowed any maintenance as per the said judgement or decree and is not in receipt of any amount since the year 2003 till date. This affidavit is filed as per the directions of this Hon'ble Court made on 23.09.2026'. Thus it is very clear that the applicant is not in receipt of maintenance allowance from the former husband.

In this connection, Annexure R-1 report of the 4^th respondent must also be an eye-opener. It has come out that the applicant has three siblings, all are well placed. Due to lack of consensus among the siblings, it appears that they are unable to reach a settlement regarding the partition of 22 cents of property belonged to the mother. The applicant has asserted that she has no independent income of her own. This cannot be proved through negative evidence. The income of the daughter cannot be tagged with her income. It has also come out from Annexure R-1 that there is no other disabled, unmarried, widowed or divorced daughter eligible to receive family pension. All the siblings are well settled. Moreover, there is no mandate that consent letters should be obtained from the siblings as a pre-requirement for processing the application.

Incorporation of provisions for grant of dependent family pension is a welfare measure for which strict rules of interpretation are not insisted. Authorities are expected to take a holistic approach in such matters.

On overall consideration of the materials made available before the Tribunal, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to get family pension.

Resultantly, Annexure A-1 is quashed, and the 3^rd respondent is directed to grant her family pension from 13.12.2024, the day following the death of the mother. The process shall be completed within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the Order.

M.A.597/2026 is closed.

The Original Application is allowed as above. No costs.