DIPALI DAS vs N.F.RAILWAY on 16 October 2026

ORDER

PER R.S. DOGRA, MEMBER (J):

The instant OA has been filed by the applicant praying for the following relief(s):- 8.1. The Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the respondents to set aside and quash the Impugned order No. PEN/HQ/SO/DD dated 16/09/2024 passed by the Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer, North East Frontier Railway, Guwahati, Assam and any action related or consequent thereto; and/or.

8.2. The Hon'ble Tribunal may direct the respondent authorities to forbear from giving any effect to the Impugned order No. PEN/HQ/SO/DD dated 16/09/2024 passed by the Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer North East Frontier Railway, Guwahati, Assam and any action related or consequent thereto; and/or 8.3 The Hon'ble Tribunal may direct the respondent authorities to release the Family Pension of the applicant's Late Father with immediate effect and any action related or consequent thereto; and/or 8.4. Any other relief or reliefs as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper, including the cost of the case.

2. The facts of the case are that the applicant's father was an employee of North East Frontier Railway (in short N.F Railway) and served as Head Clerk (Head Clerk/HQ/MLG/Mechanical Dept.) till his retirement on 31.10.1995. Upon superannuation, the father of the applicant was provided with a Pension Payment Order book bearing P.P.O No. PNO/PN/Mech/1342 (S) dated 08.11.1995. After the demise of the applicant's father on 18.12.2000, her mother by SOURABH KUMAR SOURABH KUMAR

Smt. Golapi Das was receiving the family pension and she continued to receive the same till her demise on 16.02.2020. In the meantime, the applicant who was a divorced daughter had separated from her husband in the year 1982, had sought for family pension of her Late Father and had therefore, preferred a representation dated 18.05.2022 before the respondent no.

4. As the said representation was not considered, the applicant had preferred an О.А. No. 170/2024 titled Ms. Dipali Das v. Union of India and connected case i.e. M.A 94/2024(Ms. Dipali Das v. Union of India) and vide order dated 23.07.2024, the Court had passed an order directing the respondent authorities to consider the representation of the applicant dated 18.05.2022. Upon considering the representation of the applicant, the said authority vide Impugned order No. PEN/HQ/SO/DD dated 16.09.2024 had passed a speaking order, whereby it was observed that 'as per Railway Board's letter no. F(E) III/2007/PN 1/5 dated 23/08/2017 (RBE No 102/2017), wherein Para- 6 denotes that grant of family pension to a divorced daughter in such cases where the divorce proceedings had been filed in competent court during the life- time of the employee/pensioner or his/her spouse but divorce took place after their death. It was further laid down in the said by SOURABH KUMAR SOURABH KUMAR

speaking order that since the date of filing of the divorce petition of the applicant was 18.11.2020 i.e. after the death of her parents, therefore, in light of the Railway Board's letter no. F(E) III/2007/PN 1/5 dated 23.08.2017 (RBE No. 102/2017), the claim for granting family pension in favour of the applicant would not be allowed. However, while passing the said impugned order, the said authority did not consider the fact that the applicant and her husband had been living separately since 1982 and as such, her case can be treated to be a case of dissertation since 1982 and therefore, it was during the lifetime of her Late father that she had come back to her fathers' house. Therefore, the same ought to be interfered and is liable to be set aside and quashed. Hence, this OA.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order dated 16.09.2024, whereby the claim of the applicant was rejected in the light of Railway Board Establishment Order No. 102/2017 (R.B.E. No. 102/2017). Entitlement of family pension is not a recurring cause of action and hence, the OA is liable to be dismissed being barred by limitation. The cause of action has arisen after the death of the applicant's mother i.e. on by SOURABH KUMAR SOURABH KUMAR

16.02.2020. Applicant has not filed any delay condonation application. In view of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Others vs. M.K. Sarkar reported in (2010) 2 SCC 59, the cause of action cannot be extended either by a court's direction to consider a representation issued without examining the merits or by a decision given in compliance with such direction. However, it is to mention herein that the respondents being a government department is bound by the service book and declaration given by the government employee. The name of Smt. Dipali Das appeared in the PPO as unmarried daughter. It is to mention that Late Harish Chandra Das Ex-Hd Clerk under PCME/MLG retired from railway service w.e.f. 31.10.1995 when Smt. Dipali Das was already married and was having a daughter. Therefore, the ex-employee has submitted misinformation to the department regarding the marital status of his daughter. Also, in the medical card issued in the year 2004, the marital status of Smt. Dipali Das has been shown as divorced daughter which is also a misinformation because in the year 2004, divorce of Smt. Dipali Das did not occur. In the PPO, the date of birth has been mentioned as 02.05.1978. In the medical card, the date of birth has been mentioned as 01.12.1964. In by SOURABH KUMAR SOURABH KUMAR

the Aadhar card and PAN card also, the date of birth has been mentioned as 01.01.1965. However, in the instant OA, at para 4.3, it is stated that the actual date of birth of the applicant is 01/12/1965. Therefore, the statements made by the applicants are contradictory to the available records. Counsel further states that the family pension was stopped after the death of applicant's mother on 16.02.2020. Further, it is denied that the applicant was a divorcee at the time of superannuation of the applicant's father as claimed by her. The decree of divorce was passed by the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court-III, Kamrup (M), Guwahati only on 01.12.2021. However, it is to mention herein that in legal proceedings, the burden of proving facts asserted by a person generally rests on that individual. This principle, often referred to as "he who asserts must prove", means that if someone wants a court to make a decision based on certain facts, they must provide sufficient evidence to convince the court of the truth of those facts. The grant of family pension to a divorced daughter is guided by the conditions laid down in Railway Board's letter no. F(E)/III/2007/PN1/5 dated 23.08.2017 (RBE No. 102/2017). As per RBE No. 102/2017, a divorce daughter by SOURABH KUMAR SOURABH KUMAR

is eligible for grant of family pension in such cases where the divorce proceedings had been filed in a competent court during the life-time of the employee/pensioner or his/her spouse but divorce took place after their death provided the claimant fulfils all other conditions for grant of family pension. As mentioned earlier, the divorce proceedings had been filed in the Family Court, Kamrup (M), Guwahati only on 18.11.2020 i.e. after the death of her father and mother who died 18.12.2000 and 16.02.2020 respectively. Accordingly, the Speaking Order was issued vide PFA/NFR/MLG's letter No. PEN/HQ/SO/DD dated 16.09.2024, wherein it is stated that late Harish Chandra Das, Ex- Hd. Clerk under PCME/MLG, i.e. the father of Ms. Dipali Das expired on 18.12.2000 and Lt. Golapi Das, i.e. mother of Ms. Dipali Das expired on 16.02.2020. The divorce case of Ms. Dipali Das has been filed on 18.11.2020. i.e. after demise of both father and mother. As such, the condition for granting Family Pension in favour of Ms. Dipali Das does not fulfil the condition laid down in Railway Board's letter No. F(E)III/ 2007/PN1/5 dated- 23/08/2017 (RBE No. 102/2017) being a divorce daughter. Therefore, the impugned speaking order is as per the extant rule as stated earlier and there is no infirmity in the speaking order.

by SOURABH KUMAR SOURABH KUMAR

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that Order No. PEN/HO/SO/DD dated 16.09.2024 passed by the Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer North East Frontier Railway, Guwahati, Assam is bad in law and has been passed without considering the fact that while passing the said Impugned order, the said authority did not consider the factual position in the case of the applicant as per rule 75 of the Family Pension Scheme for Railway Servants, 1964 which states that family pension shall be payable in case of unmarried or widowed daughter or divorced daughter. Moreover, the applicant and her husband had been living separately since 1982 and as such, her case can be treated to be a case of dissertation since 1982 and therefore, it was during the lifetime of her Late father that she had come back to her fathers' house. Further, the Gaon Pradhan/Gaon Burah of Dadara Borgaon has categorically stated that the applicant is a resident of the aforesaid locality and vide letter dated 09.02.2022, the said authority has stated that the applicant who happens to be a resident of the locality and is the daughter of Late Harish Chandra Das and Late Golapi Das had been married from her house; however, only after the solemnization of her marriage, by SOURABH KUMAR SOURABH KUMAR

she left her husband's house and has been residing with her parents at village Dadara, Hajo, Assam. It is to be stated herein that the said letter dated 09.02.2022 is a testimony to the fact that the status of the applicant is equivalent to a divorced daughter since 1982 as her husband had deserted her and as a result, she has been residing in her father's house since 1982.

Counsel states that the settled principle with regard to law of pension or claim of pension is that there is no fixed time limit to claim and therefore, the allegation raised by the respondent authorities stating that the claim of the applicant is time barred is not tenable in the eyes of law.

5. Heard the parties and perused the materials on record.

6. The grievance of the applicant is that she is claiming for her father's family pension in light of the fact that she is a divorced daughter and she and her husband had been living separately since 1982 and as such, her case can be treated to be a case of dissertation since 1982 and therefore, it was during the lifetime of her Late father that she had come back to her fathers' house. However, the family pension of the applicant by SOURABH KUMAR SOURABH KUMAR

was stopped after the death of her mother on 16.02.2020. The Railway authorities have issued conditions of family pension to a Divorced Daughter in letter no. F(E)/II/2007PN1/5 dated 23.08.2017. The applicant has been deserted by her husband since 1982 and as such, there should not be any retrospective effect in the case of the applicant and her divorce should be deemed to be counted from 1982 prior to the coming of the said letter as he places reliance on one Letter dated 09.02.2022 which states that the applicant had left her husband’s house a long ago and was living with her parents in village.

7. We have also gone through the O.M. dated 19.07.2017 issued by Ministry of Personnel, P.G. & Pensions, wherein at para Nos. 5 & 6, it has been held that: “5. This department has been receiving grievances from various quarters that the divorce proceedings are a long drawn procedure which take many years before attaining finality. There are many cases in which the divorce proceedings of a daughter of a Government employee/pensioner had been instituted in the competent court during the life time of one or both of them but none of them was alive by the time the decree of divorce was granted by the competent authority.

6. The matter has been examined in this department in consultation with Department of Expenditure and it has been decided to grant family pension to a divorced daughter in such cases where the divorce proceedings had been filed in a competent court during the life-time of the employee/pensioner or his/her spouse but divorce took place after their death – provided the claimant fulfils all by SOURABH KUMAR SOURABH KUMAR

other conditions for grant of family pension under rule 54 of the CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972. In such cases, the family pension will commence from the date of divorce.”

8. In the present case at hand, the petitioner had filed divorce petition on 18.11.2020 i.e. after the death of her parents but it is an admitted case that she was residing with her parents for the last 38 years. In the year 2020, the applicant had filed a divorce petition u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Guwahati which was registered as case No. 649/2020 and the Family Court vide Judgement dated 01.12.2021 had dissolved the applicant’s marriage by a decree of divorce. The Applicant has placed reliance heavily on Judgement dated 18.08.2026 passed by the Hon’ble Court of Tripura at Agartala in W.A. No. 37/2026, wherein the Hon’ble High Court had observed and directed as follows: “28) In fact, the Government of India had Government of India issued an office memorandum on 19.07.2017 which contained in Clause (6) thereof as under: “the Government of India had decided to grant Family Pension to the divorced daughter even in cases where the divorce proceedings had been filed in a competent Court during the lifetime of the pensioner/employee or his or her spouse, but divorce took place after the death provided that the claimant fulfills all other conditions for grant of Family Pension under Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and that in such cases by SOURABH KUMAR SOURABH KUMAR

Family Pension will commence from the date of the divorce." ……..……….

31) The Orissa High Court also has taken a similar view in Biswamitra Dhal v. State of Odisha and others. The Orissa High Court held that the Family Pension scheme is a welfare legislation enacted with the objective for providing financial security to the dependent family members of a retired Government employee/pensioner, and in a situation where the petitioner therein did not incur any of the disqualifications contemplated under the applicable rules and had also obtained a valid decree of divorce, the benefit cannot be denied. It held that a rigid and technical interpretation of the rules denying Family Pension to immediate family members of the deceased pensioner who are dependent on him or her during his or her lifetime would not be proper and would defeat the very object sought to be achieved by the scheme or statute. In that case also, the decree of divorce was obtained after the demise of her father, who was the retired Government employee/pensioner and it was noted that she had been ousted from her matrimonial home and was residing with her parents for a long time prior to the death of her father. …………

36) The learned Single Judge has taken a hypertechnical view in the matter on the ground that she was only dependent on her father at the time of his death, but she was still a married daughter though separated from her husband and not a divorced daughter.

37) Therefore, the Writ Appeal is allowed; the judgment dt.01.04.2026 of the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.132 of 2025 is set aside and the said Writ Petition is allowed, and the respondents-Agartala Municipal Corporation is directed to pay Family Pension to the appellant from the date she secured the divorce decree, i.e. with effect from 04.10.2021 and continue to pay the same during her lifetime. The arrears of Family Pension shall be paid to the appellant within 3(three) months from today with interest @6% per annum on the date they fell due till the date of actual payment.”

by SOURABH KUMAR SOURABH KUMAR

9. Therefore, we are of the conviction that once the similarly situated cases have already been dealt with by the Hon’ble High Courts granting family pension in favour of the applicants therein who were divorced daughters, we cannot take a divergent view in this matter also considering the fact that applicant has been living with her parents for more than 30 years. Accordingly, we allow the instant OA in the light of the OM dated 19.07.2017 issued by the Government of India for grant of family pension to divorced daughter with the following direction to the respondents:– “(a) Impugned Order dated 16.09.2024(Annexure-A/11) is quashed and set aside being unjust and arbitrary.

(b) To grant family pension to the applicant from the date when her divorce was settled i.e. from 01.12.2021.

(c) Consequential benefits, if any, shall also be given to the applicant.

(d) The above exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.”

10. Pending M.A.(s), if any, also stand disposed of. No costs.

(MALLIKA ARYA) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J) /SK/

by SOURABH KUMAR SOURABH KUMAR