Pushpa Sharma vs Union Of India & Ors.

Present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:-

The brief facts of the case are that the father of the applicant, Late Murari Lal was working as IOW, No.0589, Banaras Locomotive Works, Varanasi and died in harness on 16.05.1986. After his death, the mother of the applicant was receiving family pension. The mother of the applicant died on 25.02.2013. Thereafter, the applicant states that, she made oral requests before the respondents for family pension in her favour and then on 08.11.2023, she made a representation before the competent authority to grant her family pension as a divorced daughter. In response, the applicant received a letter dated 01.04.2024 in which her claim was rejected on the ground of delay. Then the applicant moved another letter dated 20.05.2024 before respondent no.2 explaining the reasons for seeking family pension belatedly and another representation dated 10.01.2025 was also moved by her followed by a letter dated 14.02.2026. The present O.A. has been filed against the impugned order dated 18.03.2026 passed by respondent no.3, and the impugned orders dated 24.01.2025 and 18.10.2024 passed by respondent no.2, whereby the claim of the applicant for family pension has been denied.

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is a divorced daughter of the late employee of BLW Varanasi, namely, Shri Murari Lal, who died in harness on 16.05.1986. The applicant was married on 24.06.1988 with one Nand Lal Vishwakarma but due to matrimonial dispute, she began to live with her mother from 1993. It is also submitted that on death of the applicant’s father, family pension was allowed to the mother of the applicant. The applicant had filed one divorce petition in the year 2013 as case no.194/2013 but it was dismissed in default. The applicant’s mother also died in the year 2013. In the year 2023, the applicant again filed a divorce petition which was again dismissed with the observation that on dated 18.01.2000 itself, divorce petition of the applicant’s husband has been allowed, thus, the case filed in the year 2023 on behalf of the applicant is barred by res judicata. Learned counsel for the applicant referred to the legal position and argued that simply on this ground that the applicant was receiving maintenance under section 125 of CrPC and on the ground of delay in pursuing the matter, she cannot be deprived of family pension as she was fully dependent on the income of her matter. Thus, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shri M.L. Patil (Dead) Through LRs vs. The State of Goa and Anr. in Civil Appeal No.4100 of 2022 decided on 20.05.2022; order dated 07.02.2023 passed by the Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal in O.A./698/2018 (Smt. Ranno Devi vs Union of India and ors) and the order dated 01.11.2022 passed by the Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal in O.A./1178/2017 (Smt. Shamshunisha vs. Union of India and ors) and also placed reliance on rule 75 of the Railway Servant (Pension) Rules, 1993.

Central Administrative Tribunal^{4. Submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that the} employee concerned died in the year 1986 and then family pension was allowed to his widow who also died in the year 2013. If the applicant had been divorced and was living along with her mother and was dependent on her income, she ought to have approached for grant of family pension immediately after the death of her mother. It is next argued that the applicant, for the first time, approached before the department in the year 2023; her name was not recorded as dependent by her mother and the applicant is also receiving maintenance allowance. Thus, it is argued that there is no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned orders passed by the respondents as the applicant is not entitled for family pension as a divorced daughter. Learned counsel for the respondents also argued that the applicant herself was not aware about her status (divorced) as she had moved a petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the competent court in the year 2023. Thus, in any case, if she is allowed family pension it could not be for the period before 2023. Thus, learned counsel for the respondents argued to dismiss the O.A.

I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record.

Before discussing the submission raised across the Bar, I have minutely perused the law laid down in the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant. Since the present matter is for grant of family pension, although the applicant made an application for grant of family pension for the first time in the year 2023, her prayer cannot be rejected solely on the ground of delay in making the prayer as the cause shown in the O.A. and the relief claimed by the applicant is a continuing cause. Thus, observation recorded in the impugned orders regarding delay in moving the application for family pension and rejection of the prayer on this ground is not acceptable.

The applicant claims herself to be the divorced daughter of the deceased employee who died in the year 1986 after which family pension was allowed to his widow (mother of the applicant) who continued to receive the same till her death in the year 2013. On the death of the mother of the applicant, she did not immediately approach the authority concerned for family pension on the grounds of being a divorced daughter. Although the applicant had filed petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on two occasions, (first was dismissed in default and the second petition moved in the year 2023 was also dismissed on the ground of res judicata), record annexed with the O.A. reveals that one petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act had been moved in the year 1996 by the husband of the applicant before the competent court of law which was allowed ex parte on 18.01.2000. The judgement and order passed in O.S. No.194/1996 was the basis for rejecting the divorce petition moved by the applicant through O.S. No.274/2023. Thus, on the basis of annexure no.8 of the O.A., it is clear that the divorce took place in the year 2000 itself, thus, the applicant would come under the category of divorced daughter from the date of judgment and order passed in O.S. No.194/1996 itself. The applicant’s mother was receiving family pension up to February, 2013 and as per the provision of rule 75 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 and rule 50 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 2026, a divorced daughter who is dependent on the income of her mother or father and fulfills the entire requirement as contained in these rules, is entitled for family pension on the ground of being a divorced daughter. In such a situation, instead of rejecting the claim of the applicant for grant of family pension by entering into the technicality of delay in moving the application for family pension, the respondents ought to have inquired into the matter in light of the provisions contained in the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 (replaced by Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 2026). Thus, this O.A. is liable to be allowed.

Accordingly, the O.A. stands allowed. The impugned orders dated 18.03.2026, 24.01.2025 and 18.10.2024 are hereby quashed. The respondents are hereby directed to consider the applicant’s prayer for family pension in light of the settled legal position with respect to the matter as well as the provisions of Railway Services (Pension) Rules as discussed above. Since the applicant’s status as a divorced daughter is established and grant of family pension in this case cannot be denied on the ground of delay, therefore, after completing the formality as per the aforesaid rules, if the applicant is otherwise found suitable for grant of family pension, then the same must be released in her favour from the date when she first applied for grant of family pension. The aforesaid exercise should be completed within a period three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. All associated MAs also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.