Central Administrative Tribunal
SMT SRIRANGAM ALIVELU vs SOUTH EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY on 6 November 2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR
(Hybrid Mode)
Original Application No.203/51/2024
Jabalpur, this Friday, the 06th day of November, 2026
HON’BLE MRS. MALLIKA ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Smt. Srirangam Alivelu, aged about 60 years, Divorced Daughter of Late Shri Nemani Narsingha Rao, Resident of Near Raja Dairy, Vijaynagar, Devrikhurd, Bilaspur, Tahsil & District Bilaspur (C.G.) – 495004.
-Applicant
(By Advocate – Shri Nishant Bhanushali through VC)
V e r s u s
1. Union of India through the General Manager, South East Central Railway, General Manager’s Office, RTS Colony, Railway Colony, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) – 495004.
2. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, South East Central Railway, Personnel Department, Divisional Railway Manager Office, Railway Colony Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) – 495004.
3. Assistant Divisional Finance Manager, Senior Divisional Finance Manager’s Office, South East Central Railway, Divisional Railway Manager Office, Railway Colony Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) – 495004.
-Respondents
(By Advocate – Shri Ramakant Mishra)
(Date of reserving order : 05.11.2026)
ANUPAM
MISHRA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
The applicant, who is a divorced daughter of late Shri Nemani Narsingha Rao, deceased employee, is aggrieved by rejection of her case for grant of family pension.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the father of the applicant was an employee of the respondent department. He retired from service on 31.07.1988 and was in receipt of pension after his retirement. The applicant got married on 04.03.1991 with S.B. Nageshwar Rao and out of their wedlock, one child was born. However, on 29.04.2008 (Annexure A-5), she got divorced from her husband and started living with her father. On 09.02.2018, father of the applicant died and after his death, applicant’s mother was getting family pension. Subsequently, on 16.01.2023, her mother also passed away. Therefore, being a divorced dependent daughter, the applicant submitted an application along with the requisite documents (Annexure A-7) for grant of family pension as she was dependent on her parents at the time of the death of her father and mother. However, vide the impugned communication dated 27.09.2023 (Annexure A-1), her claim has been rejected on the ground that the applicant should claim maintenance from her ex-husband instead of family pension.
ANUPAM MISHRA
3. In their reply, the respondents have stated that the applicant is having a regular income of Rs.36000/- per month. Therefore, as per the notification issued vide letter no.F(E) III/2008/PN 1/10 dated 22.10.08, family pension cannot be granted to an earning daughter.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the documents available on record.
5. The counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant gave an affidavit (page 51 of the OA), wherein she has stated that she does not have any source of income. Moreover, the impugned rejection letter nowhere mentions the above fact that her case has been rejected on the ground of her having a regular monthly income.
6. On consideration of the rival submissions, I find that the claim of the applicant has been rejected without proper examination of the relevant provisions governing her eligibility for grant of family pension. On one hand, the applicant has given an affidavit that she does not have any independent source of income. The respondents have controverted this stand in their reply that she is having an income of Rs.36,000/- per month as per her own admission (Column 9 Annexure A-7). This is not supported by
ANUPAM MISHRA
any documentary evidence e.g. salary slip, bank statement etc. Thus, on perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the respondents have not conducted a proper enquiry nor done any verification regarding the alleged income of the applicant before rejecting her claim. It has not been disputed by the respondents that the applicant was not dependent on her father at the time of her divorce or even at the time of death of her father. Thus, she is legally entitled to receive the family pension after death of her parents being a divorced dependent daughter. However, the aspect of her financial status and the alleged income requires proper verification by the competent authority.
7. In view of the above, the impugned communication dated 27.09.2023 (Annexure A-1) is set aside. The respondents are directed to conduct a proper enquiry and verify the present financial status of the applicant along with her source of income. For this purpose, the applicant shall also be given an opportunity to furnish relevant documents and information in support of her claim. Upon such verification, if it is found that the applicant does not have any independent source of income and also fulfils the other eligibility conditions prescribed under the applicable rules and instructions, the respondents shall consider and decide her claim for grant of family
ANUPAM MISHRA
pension in accordance with law. The entire exercise, including passing of a reasoned and speaking order on the applicant's claim, shall be completed within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
8. Accordingly, the Original Application stands disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.
(Mallika Arya)
Administrative Member
am/-
ANUPAM MISHRA