Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Shaza Hamid vs Field Gun Factory on 17 March, 2026
O.A./998/2024
(Reserved on 13.03.2026)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad
Original Application No.998 of 2024
Pronounced on this the 17th Day of March, 2026.
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)
Shaza Hamid D/o Late Abdul Hamid, R/o House No. 2/295, Virat
Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226010 (U.P.)
....Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Ashutosh Sharma
Versus
1. Field Gun Factory, a unit of Advance Weapons and Equipment
India Limited, Ministry of Defence, Government of India
Enterprise at Armapur, Kanpur Nagar through its General
Manager.
2. Directorate of Ordnance (Coordination & Services), Field Unit at
Kanpur.
...Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Vidyapati Tripathi
ORDER
Present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:-
"(i) an order or direction be issued directing the respondents to grant family pension with arrears to the applicant since the date when the same became due to the applicant within a period to be determined by the Hon'ble Tribunal;
(ii) to issue such other and further orders/direction as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case which the applicant is found entitled to, and
(iii) to award cost in favour of the applicant."
2. Brief facts of this case are that the father of the applicant who was a pensioner of the respondents' department died on 13.08.2021 leaving behind the applicant (the divorced daughter) and her widowed mother. Thereafter, the applicant applied for family Digitally signed MADHU by MADHU KUMARI KUMARI Page 1 of 9 O.A./998/2024 pension on 11.11.2021 and completed the requisite documents. The applicant was asked by the department to produce the valid document pertaining to her divorce after which the applicant submitted her representations explaining the validity of Khulanama under the Mohammaden Law. The respondents have asked the applicant to submit documents pertaining to divorce for releasing the family pension vide their letter dated 15.01.2024 the requirement of which has been challenged in the present O.A.
3. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with Mr. Abdul Qadir Jilani on 15.12.2012 in accordance with Muslim rites and rituals. Shortly after the marriage a discord and disharmony emerged between the applicant and her husband which had constrained the applicant to invoke Section 2 of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939. The applicant filed the divorce petition on 04.04.2016 under Section 2 of the Act of 1939 read with Section 2 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937. On the basis of a compromise dated 08.09.2016 based on mutual consent described in khulanama executed on the same date a fatwa was issued by the Darul Qaza, Nadwatul Ulama at Lucknow. The Office of Qazi-e-Shahr Lucknow has also issued a Divorce Certificate dated 26.09.2022 declaring that the marriage of the applicant and her husband has been dissolved on 08.09.2016 by mutual consent under the Muslim Law of India. The Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 04.10.2016 accepted the divorce between the applicant and her husband through khulanama dated 08.09.2016 as valid and on the said basis quashed the entire proceedings of Case No. 312 of 2015 arising out of Case Crime No. 6 of 2014 which was pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. VI, Kanpur Nagar. It is specifically submitted that the marriage of the applicant was dissolved on 08.09.2016 and her father died on 13.08.2021. He argued that as the applicant was divorced during the lifetime of her father, she became dependent on him and living Digitally signed MADHU by MADHU KUMARI KUMARI Page 2 of 9 O.A./998/2024 with him since 2012 and therefore she is eligible for family pension since the date of death of her father.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that in Islamic jurisprudence, Khula' is generally recognized as a valid form of divorce. Para 319 of Mulla's Principles of Mahomedan Law provides that a divorce by khula is a divorce with the consent, at the instance of the wife, in which she gives or agrees to give a consideration to the husband for her release from the marriage tie. In such a case, the terms of the bargain are matters of arrangement between the husband and wife, and the wife may, as the consideration, release her dyn-mahr (dower) and other rights, or make any other agreement for the benefit of the husband. A khula divorce is effected by an offer from the wife to compensate the husband if he releases her from her marital rights, and acceptance by the husband of the offer. Once the offer is accepted, it operates as a single irrevocable divorce (talak-i-bain) and its operation is not postponed until execution of the khulanama (deed of khula). It is further submitted that as per Para 320 unless it is otherwise provided by the contract, a divorce effected by khula operates as a release by the wife of her dower.
5. The contentions of learned counsel for the applicant are that the Office Memorandum dated 11.09.2013 issued by the Government of India which was further clarified vide Circular dated 11.09.2013 and 02.09.2014 deals with the issue of eligibility of widowed/divorced daughters for grant of family pension but the respondents are not following the said Office Memorandum which is causing immense hardship to the applicant. The applicant has already produced all the essential documents pertaining to her divorce in accordance with the Mohammaden Law which has also been accepted by the Hon'ble High Court but the respondents are unnecessarily insisting for divorce decree issued by the competent court which is totally uncalled for and shows non-application of mind on the part of the respondents. It is further contended that it has been settled in a catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Digitally signed MADHU by MADHU KUMARI KUMARI Page 3 of 9 O.A./998/2024 Constitutional Courts that the insistence for divorce decree issued by the competent court indicating valid dissolution of marriage for grant of benefit of family pension to the divorced daughter would not be justified since the customary divorce by way of talaq is unequivocally recognized under Islamic Law as like customary divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. It is further submitted that the case of the applicant is on a better footing than the principle of law propounded by the Hon'ble Courts. One of such judgments passed by the CAT Jabalpur Bench in Ο.Α. No. 734/2022 dated 15.05.2025 in which the similar controversy was involved is also relied upon.
6. Submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that after scrutiny of the applicant's documents, this office has found a gap with regard to the processing of claim for Pension i.e., the applicant has submitted notarized Divorce (Khula-nama), as well as Divorce Certificate issued from the office of Qazi-e-Shahr, Lucknow, which is not valid documents for processing the claim of pension and the applicant has not submitted the legitimate divorce papers passed by the competent court during the lifetime of the employee/pensioner till date, therefore, the claim of the applicant couldn't be processed. Thereafter, this office vide letter dated to the 03.08.2022 has clearly informed applicant to provide the valid documents of divorce as per CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, while intimating that "divorced daughter is eligible for family pension where the divorce proceedings had been filed in a competent court during the lifetime of the employee /pensioner or his/her spouse but divorce took place after their death, provided the claimant fulfills all other conditions for grant of family pension under Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. In such cases the pension will commence from the date of divorce."
"Divorce is valid in Law." The DFUKN vide letter dated 27.02.2023, has informed that an email was sent to PCDA in the matter wherein PCDA has directed to process the claim as per CCS (Pension) Rules, as well as also enclosed a copy of DoPPW letter dated 19.07.2017. As per the guidelines of Department of Digitally signed MADHU by MADHU KUMARI KUMARI Page 4 of 9 O.A./998/2024 Pension & Pensioner's Welfare (DoPPW) OM No. 1/13/09-P&PW(E) dated 19.07.2017 that "Divorced daughters who fulfill other conditions are eligible for family pension if a decree of divorce had been issued by the competent court during the lifetime of at least one of the parents." It is argued that this office vide letter dated 06.04.2023, has informed the applicant while requesting to provide the documents as mentioned in the said letter, so that the applicant's claim of the family pension may be processed but instead of submitting the desired documents which has been asked from her a number of times, she has filed the present O.A..
7. I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire documents on record including the written submission filed by learned counsel for the applicant.
8. It is not in dispute that a divorced daughter is entitled to family pension. Office memorandum (OM) dated 11.09.2013 issued by the Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare (DPPW) (enclosed as annexure CR-3 to the counter affidavit) states as follows:
"Provision for grant of family pension to a widowed/divorced daughter beyond the age of 25 years has been made vide OM dated 30.08.2004. This provision has been included in clause (iii) of sub-rule 54 (6) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972..."
(emphasis supplied) A perusal of rule 54 (6) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 reveals the following position:
"(6) The period for which family pension is payable shall be as follows:-
(i) subject to first proviso, in the case of a widow or widower, up to the date of death or re-marriage, whichever is earlier;
(ii) subject to second proviso, in the case of an unmarried son, until he attains the age of twenty-five years or until he gets married or until he starts earning his livelihood, whichever is the earliest;
(iii) subject to second and third provisos, in the case of an unmarried or widowed or divorced daughter, until she Digitally signed MADHU by MADHU KUMARI KUMARI Page 5 of 9 O.A./998/2024 gets married or remarried or until she starts earning her livelihood, whichever is earlier;
(iv) subject to sub-rule (10-A), in the case of parents, who were wholly dependent on the Government servant immediately before the death of the Government servant, for life;
(v) Subject to sub-rule 10(B) and the fourth proviso, in the case of disabled siblings (i.e. brother and sister) who were dependent on the Government Servant immediately before the death of Government servant , for life:
Provided that family pension shall continue to be payable to a childless widow on re-marriage, if her income from all other sources is less than the amount of minimum family pension under sub-rule (2) of this rule and the dearness relief admissible thereon:
Provided also that the grant or continuance of family pension to an unmarried or widowed or divorced daughter beyond the age of twenty-five years or until she gets married or re-married or until she starts earning her livelihood, whichever is the earliest, shall be subject to the following conditions, namely:-
(i) the family pension shall be initially payable to the minor children (mentioned in clause (ii) or clause (iii) of this sub-rule) in the order set out in clause (iii) of sub-rule (8) of this rule until the last minor child attains the age of twenty-five years; and
(ii) there is no disabled child eligible to receive family pension in accordance with the second proviso of this sub-rule:
Provided also that such disabled siblings shall be eligible for family pension for life in the same manner and following the same disability criteria, as laid down in this rule in the case of son or daughter of the Government employees or pensioners suffering from any disorder or disability of mind (including mentally retarded) or physically crippled or disabled, so as to render him or her unable to earn a living even after attaining the age of twenty-five years.
EXPLANATION 1 .- An unmarried son or an unmarried or widowed or divorced daughter, except a disabled son or daughter shall become ineligible for family pension under this sub-rule from the date he or she gets married or remarried.
EXPLANATION 2 .- The family pension payable to such a son or a daughter or parents or siblings shall be stopped if he or she or they start earning his or her or their livelihood. EXPLANATION 3 .- It shall be the duty of son or daughter or siblings or the guardian to furnish a certificate to the Treasury or Bank, as the case may be, once in a year that,
(i) he or she has not started earning his or her livelihood, and (ii) he or she has not yet married or remarried and a similar certificate shall be furnished by a childless widow after her re-marriage or by the disabled son or daughter or by parents to the Treasury or Bank, as the case may be, once in a year that she or he or they have not started earning her or his or their livelihood.Digitally signed
MADHU by MADHU KUMARI KUMARI Page 6 of 9 O.A./998/2024 EXPLANATION 4 .- For the purpose of this sub-rule, a member of the family shall be deemed to be earning his or her livelihood if his or her income from other sources is equal to or more than the minimum family pension under sub-rule (2) of this rule and the dearness relief admissible thereon.
....."
(emphasis supplied) Thus the divorced daughter is eligible for family pension subject to conditions enumerated in rule 54 (6) above. It is noted that the term used is 'divorced daughter' without any stipulation or prescription or qualification in regard to the mode of declaration of divorce.
9. A similar issue has been dealt with by the Jabalpur Bench of this Tribunal in O.A./734/2022 decided on 15.05.2025 in which on the question of whether the Khula/Ikrarnama/Talaknama submitted by the applicant is adequate for the respondents to consider her case for grant of family pension, or whether a legal divorce certificate issued by the competent court is necessary for the purpose, the judgement dated 07.10.2020 passed in O.A. No.308 of 2018 passed by the Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Ms. Najmaben Umarbhai Kureshi vs Union of India & ors has been referred to and it has been concluded that there is no requirement for obtaining decree of divorce from competent court as held in Najmaben (supra) and the insistence of the respondents on divorce certificate issued by competent court for the purpose of family pension is not justified. The relevant portion of the judgement and order passed in Najmaben (supra) case is quoted below:-
"12. From the above, it can be seen that divorce of the applicant by way of "Customary Talaqnama" had taken place in the year 1992...It is noticed that there was no need to obtain Divorce Decree from competent court till the father of the applicant was alive, naturally the applicant had not obtained decree of Dissolution of Marriage from the competent court. At the same time, the factual matrix as stated herein above suggest that customary divorce of the applicant took place during the lifetime of her father and she continued to reside with him as divorcee daughter.
13. The Hon'ble High Court in the case of Union of India vs Mayuriben Jani Daughter of Shri Durgeshbhai Nandlal Jani (supra), it is noticed that while dealing with issue of denial of family pension to the divorced daughter of ex-railway Digitally signed MADHU by MADHU KUMARI KUMARI Page 7 of 9 O.A./998/2024 employee for not fulfilling the conditions stipulated in OM dated 11.09.2013 and 19.07.2017 (i.e. R/1 collectively produced in this OA) the High Court held as under:
"Para 15. The provision of Rule 75 of the Family Pension Rules, in fact, is a benevolent piece of subordinate legislation and therefore it needs to be governed by the principles which are required to be pressed into service for extending the benefit of the family pension to those family members need support. Bearing this proposition of law in mind, if one examines Rule 75 which is also in pari materia with Rule 54 of the said Rules, would indicate that the family pension is available to the divorced daughter. The Rule does not recognize any further or other requirement to be eligible for receiving the family pension. The device in the form of guidelines developed by the authorities and incorporated in Office Memorandum are, therefore, to be viewed as only facilitating tools to assess, gauge and examine the cases of divorced daughter to receive family pension on the basis of the eligibility. When the factum of customary divorce is well recognized by the provision of Hindu Marriage Act with special emphasis upon Section 29(2), then perhaps rightly the author of Rule 54 and/or Rule 75 have not thought it fit to qualify the word "divorced daughter" by making it conditional that the divorce has to be declared by the competent court, else it would perhaps amount to improve upon the provision of Hindu Marriage Act, which unequivocally recognizes the customary divorce as a valid divorce provided the same is permissible under the community and the circumstances. The question, therefore, arises as to whether the respondents in the instant case, were having any justification to insist upon the divorce decree from the competent court and were they justified in declining to act upon the customary divorce factum which have remained unchallenged before the authority and which have been recorded by the Tribunal in its orders at length and elaborately. Section 29(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, reads as under: "Section 29(2): Nothing contained in this Act shall be deemed to affect any right recognized by custom or conferred by any special enactment to obtain the dissolution of a Hindu marriage, whether solemnized before or after the commencement of this Act."
Para 16. In other words, it can well be said that when the factum of customary divorce in both the cases have not been challenged by the authorities, their insistence for divorce decree only from the competent court indicating valid dissolution of marriage would not be justified. The Court hasten to add here that this proposition is on the valid premise that there exists no dispute qua customary divorce; in other words, the factum of applicants having a valid customary divorce deed when not under challenge and has accepted, then its mere authentication in the form of dissolution of marriage by the decree of competent court, in our view, would be improving the provision of the Hindu Marriage Act without any authority of law and the benefit, therefore, which are ensuring under Rule 54 and Rule 75 when it is not qualified in any other manner would have to be accorded to the divorced daughter also.
Para 17. As Bombay High Court has observed rightly in its judgment, the important factor is the family in which the daughter is residing when the pensioner/recipient of the family pension dies. When the said factum has not been disputed in both the cases and when it is clearly recorded by the Tribunal as a fact that both the applicants were residing with the pensioner/recipient of the family pension, then the insistence for dissolution of marriage Digitally signed MADHU by MADHU KUMARI KUMARI Page 8 of 9 O.A./998/2024 by the competent court only by way of decree, in our view, was not justified.
14. In the present case there is no challenge to the "Talaqnama" which had taken place between the applicant and her husband. Admittedly the customary divorce by way of "Talaqnama under Muslim Sariat" was well recognized mode of dissolution of marriage of Muslim couple at the relevant time and no need arose for the applicant to obtain a Divorce Decree from competent court. At the same time fact remains that the divorce of the applicant had taken place during the lifetime of her father..." (emphasis supplied)
10. In view of the above, since this case is squarely covered by the case law quote above, the O.A. stands allowed and the respondents are hereby directed to process the request of the applicant for grant of family pension on the basis of the documents filed by her with respect to her divorce as per the rules governing the matter and grant her family pension if otherwise eligible from the due date along with interest on the arrears at bank rate. This order should be complied with within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
11. All associated M.As. also stand disposed of. No costs.
(Mohan Pyare) Member-A Madhu Digitally signed MADHU by MADHU KUMARI KUMARI Page 9 of 9