Smt. Jai Kumari Rai vs Union Of India & Ors.

The present O.A has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-

The brief facts of the case are that the applicant’s father was a retired Railway employee and was drawing pension. He died on 28.09.2010. The applicant was married to Shri Sunil Rai on 23.06.1999. However, her husband was not maintaining her and had been missing since 2011. The applicant, therefore, filed Case No. 28 of 2017 (828 of 2016) under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking judicial separation after her husband had remained missing for several years and it was decreed ex-parte. The applicant’s mother, Smt. Bhagwati Devi, was receiving family pension after the death of her husband. She died on 18.05.2021. Applicant’s husband was traced later on but he also died on 19.7.2022. Thereafter, the applicant submitted representations dated 07.06.2021 and 28.07.2021 to the respondents, claiming family pension under Rule 75(6)(iii) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. However, respondent No. 4, vide the impugned order dated 12.06.2025, rejected her claim. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has filed the present Original Application.

Per contra, the respondents, in their counter affidavit, submitted that the applicant is claiming family pension as a divorced daughter of late Shri Ram Kishan, who retired from Railway service on medical grounds on 10.05.1993 and died on 28.09.2010. After his death, his wife, Smt. Bhagwati Devi was receiving family pension. The applicant claimed family pension on the ground that she was a divorced daughter. However, the order dated 19.12.2018 passed by the Family Court shows that she was granted judicial separation under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and not a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the said Act. Therefore, she cannot be treated as a divorced daughter on the basis of the said order. Accordingly, her claim was rejected vide letter dated 16.06.2022. The respondents further submitted that the applicant subsequently claimed family pension as a widowed daughter. Her claim was examined in the light of the Railway Board’s policy guidelines dated 26.09.2013, issued vide RBE No. 99/2013. Upon examination, she was found ineligible for family pension and the decision was communicated to her vide letters dated 06.11.2023 and 12.06.2025. The respondents, therefore, submitted that the applicant does not fulfill the prescribed eligibility conditions and is not entitled to family pension. They prayed that the Original Application be dismissed.

The applicant has also filed a rejoinder affidavit, reiterating the facts stated in the Original Application and denying the averments made in the counter affidavit. No new facts have been brought on record in the rejoinder affidavit.

I have heard Shri S.M. Ali, learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri Anil Kumar as well as Shri Bashist Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents, and have perused the record.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is the daughter of late Shri Ram Kishan, a retired Railway employee and has been dependent upon her parents for her livelihood since 2011, when her husband went missing. After the death of her father, her mother Smt. Bhagwati Devi was receiving family pension until her death on 18.05.2021. It was further submitted that as her husband had been missing since 2011, the applicant approached the Family Court, Jhansi, and obtained an order of judicial separation under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 19.12.2018. Learned counsel for the applicant further contended that the applicant could not obtain a decree of divorce in the absence of her husband and, therefore, she had to seek judicial separation from the competent court. It was further submitted that her husband was traced in 2022 and died on 19.07.2022. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that she is not claiming family pension under Rule 70 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, but under Rule 75(6)(iii) of the said Rules, as a dependent daughter. According to him, the respondents wrongly rejected her claim by relying upon Rule 70 without properly considering her eligibility under Rule 75 of said Rules. It was also contended that the applicant had no independent source of income and remained dependent upon her mother until her death on 18.05.2021. Therefore, she is entitled to family pension from the date of her mother’s death. Learned counsel for the applicant lastly submitted that the impugned order dated 12.06.2025 is not a reasoned order and deserves to be set aside. He, therefore, prayed that the Original Application be allowed and the respondents be directed to grant family pension to the applicant in accordance with the applicable rules, along with consequential benefits.

Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the applicant is claiming family pension as a dependent daughter of late Shri Ram Kishan, a retired Railway employee who died on 28.09.2010. After his death mother of the applicant received family pension until her death on 18.05.2021. It was further submitted that the applicant was married to Shri Sunil Rai on 23.06.1999. The order dated 19.12.2018 passed by the Family Court, Jhansi, granted judicial separation under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and not divorce. Therefore, the applicant cannot claim the status of a divorced daughter on the basis of the said order. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the applicant’s claim was examined under the applicable provisions of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, and the Railway Board’s policy guidelines dated 26.09.2013, issued vide RBE No. 99/2013. Upon examination, she was found ineligible for family pension, and the decision was communicated to her through the relevant office letters, including the impugned order dated 12.06.2025. She must fulfill the eligibility conditions prescribed under the applicable rules but she was not fulfilling the same. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents have rightly rejected her claim and that no illegality has been committed by them. He, therefore, prayed that the Original Application, being devoid of merit, be dismissed. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment dated 23.02.2026 passed by this Tribunal in Naresh Kumar v. Union of India and Others, OA No. 516/2012.

I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for both parties and perused the record.

The main question for consideration is whether the applicant is entitled to family pension as a widowed or divorced daughter of late Shri Ram Kishan under Rule 75(6)(iii) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. Another question is whether the impugned order dated 12.06.2025 has been passed by giving proper reasons.

It is not disputed that the applicant's father died on 28.09.2010 and her mother, who was receiving family pension, died on 18.05.2021. The applicant was married to Shri Sunil Rai on 23.06.1999. Her husband went missing in 2011. The Family Court, Jhansi, passed an order dated 19.12.2018 granting judicial separation under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Her husband was traced in 2022 and died on 19.07.2022.

The order of judicial separation passed under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, permits the parties to live separately but does not dissolve their marriage. On the other hand, a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the said Act dissolves the marriage. Therefore, the order dated 19.12.2018, being an order of judicial separation, cannot be treated as a decree of divorce. Accordingly, the applicant cannot be treated as a divorced daughter on the basis of the said order.

The next question is whether the applicant became eligible for family pension as a widowed daughter after the death of her husband on 19.07.2022.

In the present case, the applicant's mother died on 18.05.2021, whereas her husband died on 19.07.2022. Thus, the applicant became a widow after the death of her mother. Further, the order of judicial separation passed in 2018 did not dissolve her marriage. Therefore, on the relevant date, the applicant was neither a divorced daughter nor a widowed daughter.

The applicant has submitted that her husband had been missing since 2011 and that she was dependent upon her parents for her livelihood. These facts may show that she was living separately from her husband and was dependent upon her parents. However, family pension can be granted only in accordance with the applicable rules and policy guidelines.

In Naresh Kumar (supra), this Tribunal has dealt with another issue which was relating to the claim of an adopted child for family pension. The facts and issue involved in that case are different from those of the present case. Therefore, the said judgment does not help any assistance to resolve the issue involved in the present matter.

Similar issue as is involved in the present matter came up for consideration before this Bench in Smt. Rukaiya Khatoon filed O.A. No. 806 of 2019 before this Tribunal seeking family pension as a widowed daughter. The said Original Application was dismissed by order dated 21.07.2023. The Tribunal observed that her father had died on 10.02.1998, whereas she was married to Shri Shahid Ahmed on 18.04.1971. Her husband died on 16.12.2005, i.e., after the death of her father. Thus, her husband was alive at the time of her father's death and she was dependent upon her husband. It was also admitted by her that she shifted to her father's house after the death of her husband. Therefore, she was not dependent upon her father at the time of his death.

The aforesaid order was challenged before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Writ-A No. 19022 of 2023, Smt. Rukaiya Khatoon v. Union of India and Others, decided on 09.11.2023. The Hon'ble High Court considered Railway Board Circular No. RBE 99/2013 dated 26.09.2013 and held that a widowed or divorced daughter must fulfill the prescribed eligibility conditions at the time of the death of her parent who was a Railway employee. The Hon’ble Court further observed that where the husband of a married daughter was alive at the time of her parent's death and she became a widow only thereafter, she was not entitled to family pension under the said provision. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced below:-

The principle laid down in the aforesaid judgment applies to the facts of the present case. The applicant's husband was alive on the date of her mother's death. She became a widow only thereafter. Therefore, she did not fulfill the prescribed condition on the relevant date.

The applicant has also challenged the impugned order dated 12.06.2025 on the ground that it is a non-speaking order. The impugned order dated 12.06.2025 is quoted herein below:-

Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the applicant's claim was rejected on the basis of the Rules and instructions applicable to Railway services. An order which has been passed relying upon the applicable Rules and instructions, cannot be held to be unreasoned or non-speaking, particularly when the applicant's eligibility has been considered. Therefore, the submission made on behalf of the applicant in this regard is also not acceptable. It further appears that the applicant repeatedly submitted representations seeking family pension on one ground or another, even when the earlier grounds raised by her were found to be untenable or had become infructuous.

In view of the ratio laid down in OA No. 806/2019 (supra), which was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid writ petition, I am of the view that no interference is required in the impugned order. The OA, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. All associated MAs stand disposed of.