Nilam Kumari vs Union Of India & Ors.

Shri Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri M.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents are present and heard.

By means of this OA, the applicants have sought the following reliefs :

The applicant has filed the present Original Application challenging the impugned order dated 22.07.2024 passed by respondent No. 3, whereby her claim for grant of family pension in respect of her deceased father, Late Shyam Lal, was rejected. The applicant's father was employed in the 508 Army Base Workshop, Allahabad, and retired after rendering his service. He died on 11.01.2021, and the applicant's mother earlier died on 11.11.2020. It is also pleaded that applicant’s husband died on 01.12.2020. The applicant, aged about 48 years and stated to be a widow daughter , obtained a family membership certificate from the Tehsildar, Sadar, District Prayagraj, dated 30.08.2023. She submitted several representations and supporting documents to the respondent authorities for grant of family pension. However, her claim was not accepted, primarily on the ground of discrepancies in her name recorded in her Aadhaar card and other documents. Despite correction of her name and submission of the requisite documents, the respondents did not grant her family pension. The applicant contends that, being an eligible dependent daughter of the deceased pensioner, she is entitled to family pension under the applicable rules, including the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, and has, therefore, approached this Tribunal seeking appropriate relief.

The respondents, in their counter reply, have submitted that the applicant's claim for family pension was not processed as she failed to establish that she was dependent upon her father, Late Shyam Lal, during his lifetime. It is stated that the deceased employee retired on 31.10.1999 and died on 11.01.2021, whereas the applicant's husband had died on 01.12.2020, and the deceased employee had never intimated the department regarding the applicant's marital status or dependency. The respondents have relied upon Rule 9(j)(iii) of the relevant provisions of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, as amended by the Gazette notification dated 20.12.2021, which provides that an unmarried, widowed or divorced daughter must have been dependent upon her parent(s) during their lifetime. It is further submitted that the applicant's name and marital status were not reflected in the service records of the deceased employee, and that the applicant was residing separately in her own house, whereas her father was residing at a different address as per the service records. The respondents have also referred to reports received from the District Magistrate, Prayagraj, regarding verification of the applicant's residence and family particulars, and have contended that the documents submitted by her do not establish her dependency upon her father during his lifetime. Accordingly, the respondents have justified the impugned order dated 22.07.2024 rejecting the applicant's claim for family pension.

A rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the applicant reiterating almost the same facts as mentioned in the OA.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the widowed daughter of Late Shyam Lal, a retired employee of the 508 Army Base Workshop, Allahabad, and that after the death of her husband on 01.12.2020, her father also died on 11.01.2021. It is contended that the applicant is entitled to family pension as a dependent widowed daughter of the deceased employee and that she submitted the requisite documents, including the family membership certificate dated 30.08.2023, along with several representations for grant of family pension. However, her claim was rejected by the impugned order dated 22.07.2024 on the ground that her dependency upon her father during his lifetime was not established, despite the documents submitted by her. Hence, prayer was made to quash the impugned order and grant family pension in applicant’s favour.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant's claim for family pension was rightly rejected vide the impugned order dated 22.07.2024, as she failed to establish that she was dependent upon her father, Late Shyam Lal, during his lifetime. It is contended that the deceased employee had never intimated the department regarding the applicant's marital status or her dependency, and her particulars were not reflected in the service records. The respondents further submit that, as per the applicable provisions of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, as amended by the Gazette notification dated 20.12.2021, an unmarried, widowed or divorced daughter must have been dependent upon her parent(s) during their lifetime to be eligible for family pension. It is further stated that the applicant was residing separately in her own house, whereas her father was residing at a different address, and the reports obtained from the District Magistrate, Prayagraj, did not establish the requisite dependency. Accordingly, the respondents justify the impugned order and oppose the claim of the applicant for grant of family pension.

I have considered the rival submissions and gone through the entire records.

Before discussing the submissions raised across the BAR, it will be useful to reproduce the impugned order under challenge. The same is as under:-

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the principal issue for consideration is whether the applicant has established her entitlement to family pension as the widowed daughter of the deceased pensioner. The applicable provisions governing family pension require that an unmarried, widowed or divorced daughter claiming family pension beyond the prescribed age must satisfy the stipulated eligibility conditions, including that she was dependent upon her parent or parents during their lifetime. In the present case, the applicant has relied upon the family membership certificate and other documents submitted along with her representations. However, the material available on record does not satisfactorily establish that the applicant was dependent upon her father, Late Shyam Lal, during his lifetime. The respondents have specifically disputed such dependency and have referred to the separate residential addresses of the applicant and her father, as well as the absence of relevant particulars in the service records. The applicant has not produced sufficient cogent evidence to rebut the said contention and establish the requisite dependency. Mere proof of her relationship with the deceased pensioner and her status as a widowed daughter does not, by itself, establish fulfilment of all the conditions prescribed for grant of family pension. In view of the foregoing discussion, the Original Application is not liable to be allowed. Accordingly, OA is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

All associated MAs also stand disposed of.