NEETA ARORA vs DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING on 16 October 2026

O R D E R

The present original application has been directed against the order dated 16.01.2023 (Annexure A-14) whereby the case of the applicant for family pension has been rejected in the light of O.M. dated 26.10.2022 (Annexure A-13).

2. The facts of the case in brief is that the applicant is the daughter of the deceased Govt. employee. The father of the applicant has expired on 24.12.2019 (Annexure A/2). The applicant's father was a pensioner in the respondent department. He remained in receipt of his pension till his death and the applicant was the dependent upon pension of her deceased father and was living with her all alone without earning any livelihood. The applicant is a deserted lady who was deserted by her husband Mr. Ashok Arora way back in the year 2004. The applicant submits that vide order dated 12.10.2021 (Annexure A/12), the learned Family Court in HMA Case No. 411/2020 filed on 2.3.2020, the applicant was succeeded in getting the decree of divorce from her husband. Upon death of her deceased father, the applicant applied for grant of family pension but to the utter surprise of the applicant on the basis of impugned O.M. dated 26.10.2022 (Annexure A/13) issued by Respondent No. 1, the

RAJUL NAMDEO

Respondent No. 2 by issuing the impugned order dated 16.01.2023 (Annexure A/14), rejected the claim for grant of family pension to the applicant on the ground that the proceeding for divorce was instituted by the applicant on 02.03.2020 i.e. after the death of her deceased father. The aforesaid impugned order came to be communicated to the applicant by the Respondent No. 4 by letter dated 08.02.2023 (Annexure A/15). Hence this O.A.

3. Upon notice, the respondents have filed their reply wherein it is submitted that the applicant is the daughter of Late Sh. Jagdish Chandra Arora, formerly Record Keeper, Grade-II retired from Survey of India w.e.f. 31.07.2000 and expired on 24.12.2019. The applicant has applied for family pension upon death of her deceased father on the ground that she is a divorced daughter. She applied for family pension through her sister Smt. Sarita Arora on 25.06.2022(Annexure R/5). She was asked vide letter dated 20.07.2022 (Annexure R/6) to submit the necessary documents required for settlement of her application for Family Pension. The case of the applicant for family pension was prepared and initiated vide letter dated 05.01.2023 (Annexure R/9). Her case for grant of family pension was rejected vide letter dated 16.01.2023 (Annexure R/1) on the ground that as

RAJUL NAMDEO

per the Department of P&PW, Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions OM No.1(1)/2022-P&PW(E) dated 26.10.2022 (Annexure R/2), the applicant's divorce took place after the death of her deceased father and that the proceedings for divorce were instituted by her after death of her father and it is communicated to the applicant vide letter No.1174/3-A-29 dated 08.02.2023 (Annexure R/3).

4. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings on record. I have also considered the rival submissions.

5. The issue which arises for consideration is whether the claim of the applicant for family pension can be rejected solely on the ground that the proceedings for divorce were instituted after the death of her father, notwithstanding her assertion that she had been deserted by her husband since 2004 and was financially dependent upon her deceased father. 5.1 There is no dispute that the applicant’s father was a pensioner of the respondent department and that he expired on 24.12.2019. It is also borne out from the material referred to by the applicant that the matrimonial proceedings culminated in a decree of divorce dated 12.10.2021. The applicant has specifically pleaded that her

RAJUL NAMDEO

separation from her husband was not a consequence of any recent matrimonial dispute but had continued for a considerable period prior to the demise of her father. 5.2 I take note of the Office Memorandum dated 19.07.2017 of Ministry of Personnel, P.G. & Pensions, Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare which clarifies that a divorced daughter is eligible for family pension under Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, even where the decree of divorce was granted after the death of her parents, provided that the divorce proceedings had been instituted before the competent court during the lifetime of at least one of her parents and she fulfils all other prescribed eligibility conditions. In such cases, family pension shall be payable from the date of divorce. The relevant para of which reads thus:- “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

RAJUL NAMDEO

or his/her spouse but divorce took place after their death- provide the claimant fulfils all 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.”

5.3 The eligibility of a divorced daughter must, therefore, be examined in the light of the applicable pension rules, the relevant Office Memoranda and the material establishing dependency and other prescribed conditions. At the same time, the claim deserves consideration on the basis of the applicant’s actual circumstances and the relevant material on record, rather than by reference to an isolated fact without examining the applicable provisions in their entirety.

6. In the present case, the applicant has stated that she had been deserted by her husband since 2004 and that she remained dependent upon her deceased father for her livelihood. These assertions are material to the consideration of her claim. The fact that the decree of divorce was passed subsequently does not, by itself, establish that the applicant was financially independent or that her claim was otherwise devoid of merit. The respondents were required to examine the claim in accordance with the applicable rules and the relevant facts bearing upon the applicant’s eligibility.

RAJUL NAMDEO

7. In the circumstances of the present case, the applicant’s plea of long-standing desertion, her alleged dependency upon her deceased father and the subsequent decree of divorce require consideration in the proper perspective under the governing pension provisions. The claim cannot be adjudicated merely by making a general observation about the date of institution of the proceedings without examining the precise requirements of the applicable rule and the material relevant to their fulfilment.

8. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Tripura, Agartala, in the case of Smt. Ujjwala Rani vs. Agartala Municipal Corporation & Ors. in W.A. No. 37/2026 has dealt with the same issue, the findings of the said judgments reads thus:- “26) Neither Rule 8 quoted above nor the amendment to the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 states explicitly that to claim the benefit of Family Pension, the daughter of the pensioner should be a divorcee at the time of his death.

27) When such a requirement is not provided in the applicable rule, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge erred in reading such a requirement into Rule 8. He erred in holding that the condition precedent for entitlement of Family Pension is that the daughter should be a divorced daughter when the original pensioner died because the right to receive such pension accrues on the death of the original pensioner or on the death of his or her spouse, who was receiving pension.

28) In fact, the issued an office Government of India had memorandum on 19.07.2017 which contained in Clause (6) thereof as under:

RAJUL NAMDEO

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

29) "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 oror 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 Family Pension will commence from the date of the divorce." This shows that the Government of India has itself accepted the entitlement of a divorced daughter to get Family pension even if the divorce had not happened on the date of death of the pensioner father. The said interpretation of Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 would bind the Agartala Municipal Corporation by virtue of notification in January, 1992 by it referred to in para 18 above.

30) This office memorandum has been quoted by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Union of India and others v. Mita Saha Karmakar in WP.CT No.36 of 2025 dt.09.12.2025. The Calcutta High Court concluded in that case that the respondent had established her claim for Family Pension under the said Office Memorandum issued by the Government of India since in that case, the husband of the respondent had filed for dissolution of the marriage during the lifetime of her father and the marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce, after his death on 19.04.2013, on 01.09.2016. It was also held that the object of granting Family Pension under the memo dt.19.07.2017 was to give pecuniary support to a dependent family member of the deceased and if this requirement is fulfilled, she would be entitled to Family Pension.

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

RAJUL NAMDEO

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.

32) Though the counsel for the Agartala Municipal Corporation sought to contend that the recital in the divorce petition about the appellant's husband deserting her immediately after the marriage, cannot be taken as a face value and has to be doubted, we see no reason to doubt the same. It is difficult to believe that women in India, for the sake of paltry Family Pension would go to the extent of making false pleas in their divorce application and would break up their marriage. Also her husband has also agreed to her plea and had not disputed the same. It is unfortunate that such an unfair stand has been taken by the Agartala Municipal Corporation.

33) In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge erred in not granting relief to the appellant on the ground that she was not a divorcee on the date of the death of her father.

34) Though the learned Single Judge has noticed the judgment of the Calcutta High Court referred to by us, the learned Single Judge took a different view ignoring the fact that in that case, the Calcutta High Court specifically noticed the Office Memorandum dt.19.07.2017 which permitted a divorced daughter to get Family Pension even when the petition for divorce was filed by her prior to the death of her father, who was the original pensioner, though divorce was granted subsequently.

35) The said Office memorandum, therefore, itself indicates that the daughter need not be a divorcee on the date of the death of her father/ pensioner to be eligible to get Family Pension.

36) The learned Single Judge has taken a hyper technical view in the matter on the ground that she was only dependent on her father at

RAJUL NAMDEO

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.

38) The Writ Appeal is disposed of in view of above terms.

39) Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.”

9. Therefore, in view of the settled legal positions, the impugned order dated 16.01.2023, communicated vide letter dated 08.02.2023, cannot be sustained if the applicant’s claim has been rejected without a proper examination of the relevant facts and the applicable provisions governing family pension. The matter warrants reconsideration by the competent authority in accordance with law.

10. Accordingly, the Original Application is allowed. The impugned order dated 16.01.2023, communicated vide letter dated 08.02.2023, is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to re-consider the case of the applicant for family pension from the date she secured the divorce decree, i.e. with effect from 12.10.2021 and continue to pay the same during her lifetime.

RAJUL NAMDEO

10.1 The competent authority shall pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

11. Pending M.As, if any, stands disposed of.

(Rajinder Singh Dogra)

Judicial Member

Rajul

RAJUL NAMDEO