Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Sindhu G vs Geological Survey Of India on 22 July, 2025
1 O.A No. 180/00555/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A No. 180/00555/2024
Tuesday, this the 22nd day of July, 2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Sindhu G., aged 49 years, D/o Smt. C.P Ammini
Person suffering from mental illness and associated disability
Represented by her sister Mrs. Jalaja aged 45 years
Cholayil Padinjarethil House
Cherukode P.O, Vallapuzha, Palakkad (Dist.), Kerala - 679 336.
-Applicant
[By Advocate : Mr. Ratheesh B.]
Versus
1. The Director General
Geological Survey of India, Central Headquarters,
No.27, Jawaharlal Nehru Road,
Kolkata - 700 016.
2. The Deputy Director General
Personnel & Administration, Geological Survey of India
Central Headquarters, No.27, Jawaharlal Nehru Road,
Kolkata - 700 016.
3. The Deputy Director General
HOD, Sr, GSI Complex
Southern Region, Bandlaguda
Hyderabad - 500 068.
2025.07.23
VISHAL 17:27:26+05'30'
2024.3.0
2 O.A No. 180/00555/2024
4. The Director
Geological Survey of India, Remote Sensing & Aerial Surveys
Vasudha Bhavan, Kumaraswamy Layout
Bangalore - 560 111.
5. The Chief Controller Pensions/ The Controller of Pensions
Central Pension Accounting Office
Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance,
Trikoot-2, Bhikaji Kama Place, New Delhi - 110 066.
6. Union of India,
Represented by its Secretary,
Ministry of Mines, South Block, New Delhi - 110 011.
7. Union of India
Represented by its Secretary
Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances & Pensions
South Block, New Delhi - 110 011.
8. Union of India
Represented by its Secretary
Ministry of Women & Child Empowerment
New Delhi - 110 001.
- Respondents
[By Advocate : Mr. Anil Prasad]
The Original Application having been heard on 22.07.2025, the
Tribunal on the same day passed the following:
2025.07.23
VISHAL 17:27:26+05'30'
2024.3.0
3 O.A No. 180/00555/2024
O R D E R (Oral):-
Applicant, Smt. Sindhu G. claims that she is a person suffering from mental illness and associated disability and the O.A is being prosecuted by her younger sister, Jalaja as the guardian and next friend. Applicant and the next friend are daughters of late C.P. Ammini, who was a stenographer in the respondents' organization. Ammini had passed away on 22.07.2015. Her husband K. Gopalakrishnan, father of the applicant and the next friend had pre-deceased her on 01.06.2010. It is submitted by the applicant that she was married to one Sasidhara of Bangalore on 09.11.2000. But the relationship did not continue. Later, Sasidhara moved the Family Court, Bangalore with MC No.487/2001 alleging that she is suffering from Schizophrenia and sought dissolution of marriage. As Sasidhara did not pay the monthly maintenance ordered by the Court at the instance of the applicant and that matter is still pending before the Family Court.
2. After the death of the parents, the applicant moved the Family Court, Ottappalam with OP No. 184/2017 for divorce and obtained the Annexure A8 order by which the marriage stands 2025.07.23 VISHAL 17:27:26+05'30' 2024.3.0 4 O.A No. 180/00555/2024 dissolved. The applicant claims that she was solely dependent on the income of the mother for her livelihood as she remained separate from the husband. Now, the marriage has been dissolved. Therefore, she claims that she is entitled to get family pension under Rule 50 (9) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021. Though the respondents were moved for granting her family pension on account of the fact that she is the divorced daughter and also person with 40% disability, suffering from mental illness, the respondents did not consider the same. Annexures A9, A10 and A14 orders have been passed arbitrarily rejecting her claim for family pension. Aggrieved by the same, she has moved this Tribunal seeking a declaration that she as a disabled daughter is entitled to get family pension. Alternatively, it is submitted that she is entitled to get family pension applicable to divorced daughter and to set aside Annexures A9, A10 & A14.
3. Respondents filed reply statement disputing the contentions of the applicant. According to them, there is nothing in evidence to show that the applicant was depending on her mother for livelihood. The family constitution statement submitted by Smt. 2025.07.23 VISHAL 17:27:26+05'30' 2024.3.0 5 O.A No. 180/00555/2024 Ammini does not show that the applicant was her dependent or that she was mentally ill. The respondents have not received Annexure A11 representation. The application submitted by the applicant was referred to Bhavishya Support on 31.01.2020 and the email dated 04.02.2020 has rejected the claim.
4. According to the respondents, the applicant had moved Family Court, Ottappalam only in 2017, after the death of the service pensioner. The applicant was not a dependent of Smt. Ammini nor her mental ailment was reported to the respondents and therefore she is not entitled to get the relief. So the respondents have justified the impugned documents.
5. Heard Sri. Adi Narayanan, learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri. Anil Prasad, learned ACGSC in great detail.
6. Documents produced by the applicant indicate that Sasidhara had filed MC No.487/2001 before the Family Court, Bangalore seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 13 (i) (iii) (a) &
(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act suggestive of the fact that he had alleged mental disorder of the wife as the ground of divorce. According to the 2025.07.23 VISHAL 17:27:26+05'30' 2024.3.0 6 O.A No. 180/00555/2024 learned Counsel for the applicant, that case has not progressed. During the course of argument, learned Counsel produced a copy of order dated 31.03.2004 of the Principal Family Court, Bangalore in IA No.4 in MC No.487/2021, which was filed by the applicant, the wife, as the petitioner. From the said order, it is evident that on receiving notice in MC No.487/2021 the applicant had approached the Family Court under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of maintenance pendente lite and expenses of the proceedings. The Court had directed the petitioner in the MC, Sasidhara, to pay the respondent wife interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month from the date of institution of the MC along with cost of Rs.2,500/-. However, that amount was not paid and thus all further proceeding have been stayed till the said Sasidhara complies with the order passed by the Court on IA No.3 dated 19.09.2002.
7. The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that later they left Bangalore, the parents passed away, her brother Manoj Kumar also passed away on 16.08.2019 and there is no one to look after her except her younger sister, the next friend. Similarly referring to 2025.07.23 VISHAL 17:27:26+05'30' 2024.3.0 7 O.A No. 180/00555/2024 Annexure A15 O.M dated 19.07.2017, the learned Counsel pointed out that though decree of divorce was obtained from the Ottappalam Family Court after the death of the parents, still Annexure A8 would decide the marital status of the applicant and therefore respondents ought to have considered her request treating her as a divorcee with no means. The learned Counsel also referred to Annexures A4 & A5 medical certificates as well as Annexure A6 certificate of disability issued by the Medical Board of Taluk Head Quarters Hospital Pattambi which has assessed 40% temporary disability as she is suffering from Schizophrenia.
8. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that Annexures A4 & A5 are issued by single doctors do not conform to Rule 50 (15) (C) of the CCS (Pension) Rules. According to him, the respondents have not received Annexure A11 representation, that Annexure R1 was entertained for family pension on the ground that the applicant is a divorcee, based on Annexure A8. But the Family Court, Ottappalam was moved only after the death of the parents, that Annexure A8 was obtained only on 27.07.2019, which will not support her claim. The 2025.07.23 VISHAL 17:27:26+05'30' 2024.3.0 8 O.A No. 180/00555/2024 respondents had considered her claim only as a divorcee, that there was no petition on the basis of her claim that she is suffering from any mental disorder.
9. After hearing Counsel on both sides, it is evident that the applicant claims family pension on twin grounds. First as the divorced daughter of a service pensioner, who has no means of her own and secondly as a person suffering from mental disorder with ostensibly no source of income. Even though the learned Counsel for the applicant buttressed Annexure A15 memorandum, I am not convinced that the OM would advance the case of the applicant for family pension for a divorced daughter. As rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel, the applicant had moved the Family Court, Ottappalam long after the death of the parents. Therefore, Annexure A8 would not support the case of the applicant.
10. At the same time, it is clear that Annexure A11 representation was not considered by the respondents. They wanted to say that it has not reached the respondents. But the document indicates that the applicant had sent the registered communication to 2025.07.23 VISHAL 17:27:26+05'30' 2024.3.0 9 O.A No. 180/00555/2024 the 1 st respondent on 03.04.2021 incorporating all necessary documents including the Annexure A6 disability certificate etc. Once it is shown that the communication was sent by registered post in proper address, it can safely be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that it was delivered in the ordinary course of post. Still, Annexure A11 was not considered by the respondents in proper perspective.
11. Even though the applicant has not produced documents proving that she does not have independent source of income, there are materials to infer that she is a hapless person with no income. The copy of the order of the Family Court, Bangalore dated 31.03.2004 referred above clearly indicates that the said Sasidhara had approached the Family Court alleging mental disorder as ground for divorce. The Court had directed Sasidhara to pay monthly maintenance, pendente lite, at the rate of Rs.2,000 per month, which has not been paid. That means, there are prima facie circumstances to suggest that she has no means of her own.
12. Secondly, the alleged ground sought for divorce in Annexure A1 also cannot be ignored by the Tribunal for the present purpose, 2025.07.23 VISHAL 17:27:26+05'30' 2024.3.0 10 O.A No. 180/00555/2024 though that proceeding has not come to a logical conclusion.
13. Moreover, going by Rule 50 (9) (i) of the CCS (P) Rules 2021, marriage by a child who suffers from such disability shall not render her ineligible for family pension.
14. In this connection, it is apposite to extract the following observations of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in WA (MD) 1603/2025 dated 19.06.2025. [The Principal Account General (A & E) v. A.V. Jerald and Others].
"...7. Pension has always been characterized as a matter of right and not charity or bounty. When it comes to extending the benefit for the mentally disabled, the authority must exhibit alacrity. Such an approach alone would subserve and effectuate the benevolent object with which the statutory rules have been formulated. They should be seen as one more facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. We hold that the son/daughter of a pensioner who is mentally disabled and who falls within the scope of the pension rules should be disbursed with family pension on submission of the medical certificate evidencing his/her incapacity to earn livelihood on their own without insisting on certificate denoting income from all sources. The sanction order must be passed without any delay after the documents mentioned in the statutory rules are submitted..."
15. Similarly, the following observations of the Hon'ble Jammu and Kashmir High Court in WP(C) 2901/2023 dated 30.04.2025 [Smt. 2025.07.23 VISHAL 17:27:26+05'30' 2024.3.0 11 O.A No. 180/00555/2024 Balbir Kour v. State Bank of India and Anr.] also worth mentioning.
"...16. The objective of granting pension to a disabled person is to ensure social security and financial assistance to those who are unable to sustain themselves. Grant of pension to disabled person aims to promote equity, inclusion and social welfare by ensuring a safety net for individuals with disabilities. The provisions governing the grant of family pension to a disabled person cannot be interpreted in a narrow sense, so as to exclude genuine claims. Such provisions have to be interpreted liberally so that the benefit of this essential security measure is extended to all deserving and eligible persons..."
16. On an evaluation of the entire circumstances, I am of the view that Annexures A9, A10 and A14 deserve re-visit. I quash the same. The applicant also deserves empathetic consideration for the grant of family pension as a mentally disabled person. Therefore, the competent authority among the respondents is directed to reconsider the representation of the applicant afresh taking into account all the material circumstances. A decision shall be taken within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the applicant/ the next friend. It is open to the next friend to produce all necessary documents before the 1 st respondent or his nominee including the order of the Family Court, 2025.07.23 VISHAL 17:27:26+05'30' 2024.3.0 12 O.A No. 180/00555/2024 Bangalore passed on 31.03.2004.
O.A is disposed of as above. No costs.
(Dated, this the 22nd day of July, 2025) JUSTICE K. HARIPAL JUDICIAL MEMBER v 2025.07.23 VISHAL 17:27:26+05'30' 2024.3.0 13 O.A No. 180/00555/2024 List of Annexures in OA/555/2024 Annexure A1- True copy of order sheet dated 04.04.2001 in MC No.487/2001 in Hon'ble Principal Family Court at Bangalore in MC No.487/2021.
Annexure A2- True copy of PPO No.371410900049 of applicant's pensioner mother.
Annexure A3- True copy of death certificate of applicant's mother. Annexure A4- True copy of medical certificate dated 14.08.2015 issued by VRC Hospital & Rehabilitation Centre at Tirur. Annexure A5- True copy of medical certificate dated 20.10.2015 issued by Dr. Raphael Varghese V (Reg.42170) at Psychiatrist at Community Mental Health Programme Palakkad. Annexure A6- True copy of Standing Disability Assessment Board certificate No. 27/17 dated 22.08.2017 by Taluk Headquarters Hospital Pattambi.
Annexure A7- True copy of identity card for persons with disabilities issued by Social Justice Department Government of Kerala. Annexure A8- True copy of judgment dated 20.07.2019 in OP No. 184 of 2017 by the Hon'ble Family Court Ottappalam.
Annexure A9- True copy of letter No. G-
26017/PEN/CPA/206/FI/AMSE/08-09/9079 dated 13.02.2020.
Annexure A10- True copy of No. G-
26017/PEN/CPA/206/FI/AMSE/08-09 dated 20.04.2020. Annexure A11- True copy of request submitted by the applicant dated 28.03.2021.
2025.07.23
VISHAL 17:27:26+05'30'
2024.3.0
14 O.A No. 180/00555/2024
Annexure A12- True copy of representation dated 15.03.2024 submitted by the applicant to the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India. Annexure A13- True copy of request dated 01.04.2024 submitted by the applicant to the 1st respondent.
Annexure A14- True copy of letter No. 1677/SP-II/A- 38017/MISC/PEN/22 dated 05.06.2024.
Annexure A15- True copy of the OM No.1/13/09-P&PW (E) dated 19.07.2017 issued by the respondent.
Annexure R1- True copy of the application dated 21.10.2019 submitted by the applicant to Head Office, RSAC, GSI, Bangalore. Annexure R2- True copy of the reply email dated 04.02.2020 received from the Bhavishya Support.
Annexure R3- True copy of the Nomination for Family Pension in Form-4 dated 26.07.2019 submitted by Late C.P. Ammini. Annexure R4- True copy of the Letter No. 1118/89-II/A- 38017/Griev/Pen/Misc/2019 dated 17.03.2020 issued from the 1 st respondent.
2025.07.23
VISHAL 17:27:26+05'30'
2024.3.0