Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Pravin Ahluwalia vs M/O Railways on 8 July, 2024
1
O.A. No. 4566/2018
Item No. 29 (C-4)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 4566/2018
Reserved on: 03.07.2024
Pronounced on
on:08.07.2024
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Ms. Pravin Ahluwalia, Age - 55 Group-C,
D/o late Pooran Chand Khanna,
R/o House No. 130/A,
Brijdham Colony,
Railway Harthala Colony,
Moradabad (UP).
....Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. S. K. Gupta)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA: Through
1. Secretary,
Railway Board,
Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. General Manager,
Northern Railway,
Baroda House, New Delhi.
3. Divisional Railway Manager,
Northern Railway, Moradabad Division,
Moradabad.
4. Chief/Dy Chief Accounts Officer,
(Cash and Payments Department),
Northern Railway, New Delhi.
.... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra)
2
O.A. No. 4566/2018
Item No. 29 (C-4)
ORDER
By way of the present OA filed under Section - 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 the applicant prays for the following reliefs:-
reliefs:
"8.1 That this hon'ble Tribunal may be graciously pleased to allow this application and quash the Impugned order No. 2009/C&P/Adm/Pre 2006/Ministerial Staff, dt. 10 2009/C&P/Adm/Pre- 10-5-2018 passed by Dy Chief Accounts Officer (Cash and Payments Department), Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi (Annexure A-I)I) and direct the respondents to reconsider the case of the applicant strictly in accordance with rules as well as judgment of the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court and pass orders directing the respondents to grant family pension to the applicant with all consequential consequential benefits.
8.2 That the Hon'ble Tribunal may further graciously be pleased to pass any other or further order as may be deemed fit and circumstances of the case.
8.3 That the Hon'ble Tribunal may be graciously pleased to grant costs against the respondents respondents and in favour of the applicant."
2. The brief brief facts of the case as narrated by the learned counsel for the applicant are as under ::-
2.1 The applicant is a divorcee daughter of Late Mr. Puran Chand Khanna, who retired as a Head Clerk from DRM's office, Moradabad in the year 1977.
2.2 Learned counsel for the applicant stated that in the year, 2002, the applicant came back after marriage to her parents house and was living with her father. After serious differences s with her husband in year 2009 2009, the applicant 3 O.A. No. 4566/2018 Item No. 29 (C-4) filed a Suit for for divorce bearing No. 406/2009 during the lifetime of father who was a Government overnment servant servant. The father of the applicant applicant expired on 22.11.2009. The said Suit was dismissed on 12.05.2010 by an ex ex-parte judgment.
2.3. Thereafter, on 23.05.2011, the applicant again filed another Suit bearing No. 664/2011 in which the applicant prayed for divorce decree and the said Suit was allowed by the ex-parte parte judgment dated 23.05.2012.
2.4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on 25.06.2012, the applicant submitted a representation for grant of family pension which was not decided for a long time and, therefore, on 05.02.201 05.02.2016, the applicant submitted another representation in which she stated that her case for family pension is covered by the DOPT OM dated 11.09.2013, which was circulated by the Railway Board and she was dependent on her late father after she developed differences differences with her husband and she was not getting any help from her husband. However, the said representation was rejected.4 O.A. No. 4566/2018
Item No. 29 (C-4) 2.5. Learned counsel for the applicant stated that on 28.07.2017, the applicant preferred another representation to the respondents, respondents, however, the said representation was also rejected on 10.05.2018 by the Dy. Chief Accounts Officer, Northern Railway, New Delhi stating that the divorce was granted on 23.05.2012, therefore, Circular dated 11.10.2013 as well as Circular dated 23.08.2017 were not applicable to the facts of the case. 2.6. Placing reliance upon the judgment of Nagpur Bench of Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in W.P. No. 6884/2016 tilted Union of India & Anr. Vs. Usha Eknath Patil Patil, learned counsel for the applicant submits that tthe said judgment, while while quoting from the relevant instructions governing the subject, has held that in case the fact of customary divorce is not in dispute and even though the marriage may not have been legally dissolved, the concerned person would be entitled entitled to the benefit of family pension if an appropriate court has established and recognized customary divorce and separate stay of such a woman from her husband. Learned counsel for the applicant further added that in the instant case too, the applicant had had been residing with her father on separation from her husband much before the demise of her father. 5 O.A. No. 4566/2018 Item No. 29 (C-4) 2.7. Learned counsel for the applicant also relied upon the following judgments:
(i) OA No. 2843/2016 dated 08.05.2018 of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal.
Tr
(ii) OA No. 72/2019 dated 21.08.2020 of the Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal.
(iii) OA No. 139/2019 dated 08.09.2021 of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal.
(iv) OA No. 966/2022 dated 26.07.2022 of the Kolkata Bench of this Tribunal.
(v) OA No. 1209/2019 dated 23.05.2023 of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi.
(vi) W.P. (MD) No. 21964 of 2023 and W.M.P. (MD) No. 18316 of 2023 dated 02.11.2023 of the Madurai Bench of Hon'ble Madras High Court.
(vii) CWP No. 27707 of 2019 dated 28.05.2024 of the Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. 2.8. Being aggrieved of the same, the applicant has preferred the present OA.
6O.A. No. 4566/2018 Item No. 29 (C-4)
3. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit opposing the OA.
3.1 Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it is apparent from the papers submitted by the applicant that she was working as Assistant Teacher and has not disclosed anything about her employment. 3.2 He further states that the decree of Divorce a as filed by the applicant gives the impression of the probable manipulation by the applicant. The order dated 12.05.2010 passed in Case no. 406/2009 shows that the divorce petition under Section 13 of H.M.Act of the applicant was dismissed. The applicant has has also annexed the order dated 23.05.2012 passed in subsequent petition No.664/2011 whereby it appears that the decree Ex parte was granted to the applicant.
3.3 The subsequent petition is not even maintainable as per the law and the applicant had probab probably concealed certain facts from the Family court. The applicant did not challenge the first order dated 12.05.2010 and the same has become final and the applicant cannot be even termed as divorcee.
7O.A. No. 4566/2018 Item No. 29 (C-4) 3.4 Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the father of the applicant had retired from the railways on 31.01.1977 and expired on 22.11.2009. The cause of action for the applicant thus arose on 22.11.2009, i.e., when the father of the applicant died or on 23.05.2012, i.e., the date of divorce order in favour of applicant but the O.A. has been filed by the applicant in December, 2018 and the same is barred by law of limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 and even the representation of the applicant was dismissed vide vide order dated 04.09.2015 and present O.A. was filed led in December, 2018. It is a settled law that the repetition of the representations representation does not extend the period of limitation.
3.5 In the counter affidavit, the respondents have stated that the applicant was not dependant on her father and has filed the present OA as an afterthought and she has failed to produce any documents in the department of her father which could have given the impression that the applicant was dependant on her father. 8 O.A. No. 4566/2018 Item No. 29 (C-4) 3.6 Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the case of the applicant is not covered by DOPT O.M. dated 11.09.2013 and the applicant is drawing her own interpretation from the same. The The DOPT O.M. dated 11.09.2013 does not cover the present issue of the applicant for the eligibility of grant of family pension in terms of para 4 of the said s id OM, which states that "...only those children who are dependent and meet other conditions of eligibility bility for family pension at the time of the death of the Govt. Servant or his/her spouse, whichever is later are pension."
eligible for family pension." The O.M. of Ministry of Personnel P.G. & Pension dated 11.09.2013 does not support applicant's claim for family pension as applicant was granted decree of divorce on 23.05.2012 and her father died on 22.11.2009 so the applicant was not dependent at the time of her father's death.
4. For a holistic understanding of the issue involved in the present OA as also for better better appreciation of facts, the observations of this Tribunal recorded on some previous dates of hearing would be highly important. 9 O.A. No. 4566/2018 Item No. 29 (C-4) 4.1 Accordingly, orders dated 14.02.2023, 03.05.2023, 31.05.2023 & 27.04.2024 of this Tribunal are reproduced below verbatim:
verba 4.2 "Order dated 14.02.2023 reads as under:
Learned counsel for the applicant rests her case upon a judgment rendered by the Nagpur Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of judicature at Bombay in W.P. 6884/2016.
The said judgement while while quoting from the relevant instructions governing the subject has held that in case the fact of customary divorce is not in dispute and even though the marriage may not have been legally dissolved, the concerned person would be entitled to the benefit of family pension if an appropriate court has established and recognised customary divorce and separate stay of such a woman from her husband.
She submits that in the instant case too, the applicant had been residing with her father on separation from her husband much before the demise of her father.
Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand strongly contests the averments and submits that the issue has been fully settled by a judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in OP No 206/2016 as also also a judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in WP(C) No 10/2017 wherein the courts had categorically held that if a woman becomes a widow or divorcee after the death of her husband or her father, she cannot claim entitlement for family pension as at relevant time of death of the employee, she was neither a widow nor a divorcee as referred to in the rules for entitlement of family pension.
He draws attention to an OM dated 18.09.2014 governing the subject which has explicitly dealt with the two judg judgements he has referred to.
For the sake of clarity, it would be pertinent to reproduce the said OM verbatim :
No. 1/13/09-P&PW P&PW (E) Government of India Ministry of Personnel, P.G. & Pensions Department of Pension & Pensloner' Welfare 3rd Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan, 10 O.A. No. 4566/2018 Item No. 29 (C-4) Khan Market, New Delhi, the 18 September, 2014.
OFFICE MEMORANDUM Sub: Eligibility of widowed/divorced daughters for family pension clarification regarding.
The undersigned is directed to refer to Ministry of Railways (Rail Board)'s OM No. F(E)I/2007/PN1/5, dated 28 August, 2014 on the above subject.
2. 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 rule 54 (6) of the CCS (Pension), Rules, 1972. For settlement of old cases, it was clarified, vide OM dated 28.04.2011, that the family pension may be granted to eligible widowed/divorced daughters with effect from 30.08.2004, in case the death of the Govt. Servant/pensioner occured before this date.
3. It was further clarified vide OM dated 11 September, 2013 that if a daughter became a divorcee/widow during the period when the pension/family persion was payable to her father/mother, such a daughter, daughter, on fulfilment of other conditions, shall be entitled to family pension. The clarification was aimed at correctly interpreting the conditions of eligibility of a widowed/divorced daughter in terms of the concept of family pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. It was also stated that it was only a clarification and the entitlement of widowed/divorced daughter would continue to be determined in terms of OM dated 25th/30th August, 2004 read with OM dated 28 April, 2011. It implies that the family pens pension should discontinue in those cases where it had ben sanctioned in pursuance of, these OM but without taking into consideration that the widowed/divorced daughter was leading a married life at the time of death of her father/mother, whoever died later andd was, therefore ineligible for family pension. It would be appropriate that in order to maintain cquality before law, family pension payable to such daughters is discontinued. However, recovery of the already paid amount of family pension would be extremely harsh on them and should not be resorted to.
extremely
4. This issues with the approval of Secretary (Pension).
(D.K. Solanki) Under Secretary to the Government of India Tel. No. 24644632 11 O.A. No. 4566/2018 Item No. 29 (C-4) Ministry of Railway, (Kind attention: Shri Amitabh Joshi, Deputy Director Finance (Estt.)III) Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.
I have put a specific query to the learned counsel for the applicant with respect to the order passed by the Court of Principle Judge, Family Court, Moradabad on 20.05.2010 wherein the applicant's applicant's petition seeking dissolution of marriage was dismissed.
It is not in dispute that the father of the applicant died on 22/11/2009 and as per the judgement referred to herein, on 12.05.2010 the applicant's marriage was alive and kicking. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the applicant has been Accordingly asked to clarify as to how could this Tribunal go against the finding of an appropriate family court, and once it is established that the applicant was carrying the status of a married women even after the death death of her father, how could she be entitled for family pension in terms of the rules governing the subject as her status as established by the Family Court is of being a married woman.
Learned counsel for the applicant in response gives a compilation of various judgements and documents to establish that she was residing with her father much prior to his death and would be deemed to have obtained customary divorce in terms of the judgements of the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court referred to in the preceding preceding paragraph.
She also draws support from the judgement of this Tribunal in OA NO 139 of 2019, OA NO 2043/2016 and a bunch of other judgements she has given in her compilation. The said compilation is taken on record. Learned counsel for the respondents ts is afforded an opportunity to adequately respond.
List on 14/3/2023."
4.3 "Order dated 03.05.2023 reads as under:
Continuing the arguments and clarifying the issues raised on the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the applicant draws attention to the DoPT OM dated 19.07.2017, which has been 12 O.A. No. 4566/2018 Item No. 29 (C-4) reproduced in the judgement passed in OA No. 139/2019, on which she has relied and argues that the claim of the applicant for family pension, being a divorced daughter, is fully established under the provisions of this OM. For the sake of better understanding of the issue involved, the said OM is reproduced below :-
:
"Sub: Eligibility Eligibility of divorced daughters for grant of family pension
- clarification regarding.
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 sub rule 54 (6) of the CCS (Pension), Rules, 1972.
2. As indicated in Rule 54(8) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the turn of unmarried children below 25 years of age comes after the death or remarriage of their mother/father, i.e., th the pensioner and his/her spouse. Thereafter, the family pension is payable to the disabled children for life and then to the unmarried/widowed/divorced daughters above the age of 25 years.
3. It was clarified, vide this department Office Memorandum of even number, dated 11th September, 2013, that the family pension is payable to the children as they are considered to be dependent on the Government servant/pensioner or his/her spouse. A child who is not earning equal to or more than the sum of minimum family pension and dearness relief thereon is considered to be dependent on his/her parents. Therefore, only those children who are dependent and meet other conditions of eligibility for family pension at the time of death of the Government servant or his/her spouse, spouse, whichever is later, are eligible for family pension. If two or more children are eligible for family pension at that time, family pension will be payable to each child on his/her turn provided he/she is still eligible for family pension when the turn comes.
4. It was clarified that a daughter if eligible, as explained in the preceding paragraph, may be granted family pension provided she fulfils all eligibility conditions at the time of death/ineligibility of her parents and still on the date her tur turn to receive family pension comes. Accordingly, divorced daughters who fulfil other conditions are eligible for family pension if a decree of divorce had been issued by the competent court during the life time of at least one of the parents.
5. This department 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/ employee/pensioner had been instituted in the competent court during the life time of one or 13 O.A. No. 4566/2018 Item No. 29 (C-4) 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 sultation 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 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 under rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. In such cases, the family pension will commence from the date of divorce.
7. This issues issues with the concurrence of Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, vide their ID No. l(l 1)/EV/2017, dated 7th July, 2017. "
I have gone through the contents of this OM and have also taken note of the strong opposition of learned counsel for the respondents that the facts of this case do not attract the provisions of the OM, relied upon by the applicants.
I put a specific query to the learned counsel for the applicant today, as to how would this OM come in operation in terms of the specific specific findings of the Family Court, which has dismissed the divorce petition and also the fact that at the time of the death of the applicant's father, even though divorce proceedings were pending in the court of law, the same had been culminated by way of dismissal dismissal whereas the said OM establishes the claim for family pension only if these proceedings result in a court granting appropriate divorce.
Learned counsel for the applicant points out that in subsequent proceedings, the applicant got a divorce, he hence, she would be governed by the provisions of the aforesaid OM. Furthermore, she seeks short time to further clarify the issue raised during the course of hearing.
List the matter on 30.05.2023 for further hearing."
4.4 "Order dated 31.05.2023 reads reads as under:
Learned counsel for the applicant argues that an identical issue with respect to the rights of a divorced daughter for grant of family pension, even though she may not have been divorced at the time of death of her father, engaged the attention of the Principal Bench of Armed Forces Tribunal in O.A. No. 1209/2019 titled Smt. Asha D/o Late Ex Sgt PC Singh versus Union of India and Ors. He which specifically draws attention to paras 25 to 28 of the said order and highlights that the observations and subsequent directions of the AFT draw strength from a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. To better appreciate the 14 O.A. No. 4566/2018 Item No. 29 (C-4) argument put forth by the learned counsel, the aforesaid paras of the AFT judgment dated 23.05.2023 are reproduced below:
below:-
"25. This is so, in as much as bringing forth such demarcation through the MoD letter dated 17.11.2017 no.
1(9)/2013-D D (Pen/Policy) stating to the effect effect-
"4. The matter has been examined in this department and it has been decided that the clarification "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 employe employee/pensioner or his/her spouse but divorce took place after their deathdeath-provided the claimant fulfills all other conditions for grant of family pension. In such cases, the family pension will commence from the date of divorce" given by Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, P.G. & Pensions'. Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare vide OM No 1/13/09 1/13/09- P&PW (E) dated 19.07.2017 would also apply mutatis mutandis to divorced daughters of Armed Forcal Personnel."
creates an artificial distinction between a divorced daughter of a deceased pensioner whose spouse has also expired on the basis of the date of institution of the divorce proceedings de hors consideration of the aspect of dependence of the divorced daughter on the deceased pensioner and her spouse which is wholly violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India which mandates 'the grant of equality to all persons before the law as well as the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India' which the State cannot deny to any person.
26. As laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in L Chandra Kumar vs UOI & Ors., Appeal (Civil) 481 of 1980, decided on 18.03.1997, (which verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in L.Chandra Kumar (supra) has been referred to with approval vide judgment date dated 21.03.2023 of the Hon'ble Supreme Cout in Civil Appeal 447/2023 in UOI & Ors vs Parashotam Dass), Tebunals are possessed of the competence to test the constitutional validity of statutory provisions and rules, except of the parent statute under which they y themselves are created. No such embargo exists in the instant case
27. Thus, we hold that the antilicial distinction created vide MoD letter no. 1(9)/2013 1(9)/2013-D(Pen/Policy), dated 17.11.2017 vide para 4 thereof in relation to divorced daughters of Armed Forces ces Personnel who have instituted divorce proceedings in competent courts after the demise of the deceased pensioner parent and also after the demise of his/her spouse though the divorce undoubtedly took place and despite being entitled us a claimant 15 O.A. No. 4566/2018 Item No. 29 (C-4) fulfilling fulfilling all other conditions for grant of family pension, pension,- to decline them the right of family pension, pension,- is wholly unconstitutional.
28. The date of institution of divorce proceedings by a daughter cannot determine her dependency on her parents nor on the estate estate of her parents. Thus, the unspelt limitation embedded vide MoD letter no, 1(9)/2013 1(9)/2013- D(Pen/Policy) dated 17.11.2017 on the grant of family pension to a divorced daughter only where the divorce proceedings were instituted by her prior to the demise of the spouse of the deceased pensioner, even though she does get divorced and fulfills all other conditions for grant of family pension,- is wholly violative and discriminatory of the right of equality to all the divorced daughters for the grant of family pension ension if otherwise entitled to, The said unspelt limitation in the MoD letter no. 1(9)/20131(9)/2013- D(Pen/Policy) is thus set aside." Learned counsel for the respondents seeks adjournment to go through the said judgment and give an appropriate response to the same.
sam List on 17.07.2023."
4.5 "Order dated 27.04.2024, reads as under:
Sh. M S Reen, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention to order passed by the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 966/2022, in which an identically placed applicant, i.e., a divorced daughter of a retired Government servant, who had notot been divorced at the time of his death, was held to be entitled for payment of family pension. Learned counsel submits that the said relief was given on the basis of an earlier order passed by the same Bench in O.A. No. 1025/2015, wherein the Tribunal had had held that the relevant DoP&T OM should equally apply to a daughter who is widowed/divorced after the death of the family pensioner. Accordingly, the present OA too deserves to be allowed on the same analogy, he argues. He further draws attention to an order order of the Allahabad Bench in O.A. No. 522/2019 which had relied upon the Kolkata Bench order to extend similar relief. Sh. Reen submits that if this was not enough, the order of the Hon'ble High Court of the Bombay Bench in Writ Petition No. 6884/2016 ti titled Union of India versus Usha Eknath Patil,, had also held the similar view.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that what the learned counsel relies upon in specific cases under specific circumstances. There is no ambiguity with respect to the relevant DoP&T OM and the Government's instructions issued, from time to time. No doubt, a widowed/ 16 O.A. No. 4566/2018 Item No. 29 (C-4) divorced daughter of a pensioner is eligible for family pension.
However, the condition essential to eligibility for the same is that she he should already be dependent upon the family pensioner in her capacity as a widowed/ divorced woman at the time of the pensioner's death. Learned counsel submits that the issue has conclusively been decided by the Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 206/2016. In addition, he submits that the matter has finally been put to rest by a judgment dated 07.02.2022 of the Calcutta High Court in Union of India and Ors. versus Ratna Sarkar, which has elaborately discussed the legislative intent in the schem scheme of family pension and categorically held that the rules and the schemes never provided for family pension to daughter of a pensioner who has a status of a married person at the time of the death of the pensioner. Para 17 of the said judgment reads as und under:-
"17. As the legislative intent is demonstrated, the scheme of family pension never included a daughter of a pensioner who was married at the time of the death of the pensioner. The legislature has extended the benefit of family pension to a child/children child/children of a family pensioner on his/her demise under different circumstances as enumerated in the relevant rule. As an instance, a mentally retarded child is bestowed with the legislative blessings to have family pension throughout his life after the demise of his/her parent. But, such benefit is not extended to a married daughter. Extending family pension to a child in distress of the deceased family pensioner is a policy decision of the government. A daughter who became widowed after the demise after her fa father/mother does not possess any fundamental or statutory right to claim family pension. In the absence of any legislation in this regard, the benefit of family pension cannot be extended to a daughter of a family pensioner who was married at the time of thehe death of her father/mother. It will be unwise on the part of this Court to exercise its extraordinary of discretionary power to come to any inference contrary to the policy decision of the Government."
3. Learned counsels submit that, by and large, thethey have concluded their arguments, however, Sh. Reen seeks a short adjournment to obtain certain fresh instructions.
4. Re-list Re on 20.05.2024."
17O.A. No. 4566/2018 Item No. 29 (C-4)
5. Having regard to the submissions of learned Counsel for the respective parties, the following point points of adjudication would arise for consideration:
5.1. Whether ether a divorced daughter of a G Government servant, subsequent to the death of the Government Government servant would be included within the scope of the definition of 'family' under Rule 54 (14) (b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, or under Rule 50 - Sub_Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) ension) Rules 2021 and would, therefore, therefore be entitled to receive family pension payable under the said Rules?
5.2. Whether dismissal of first divorce petition filed during the lifetime of the Government G nt servant and subsequent filing of second divorce divorce petition after death of G Government servant would be a bar to receive family pension payable under the Rules?
5.3. Relief(s)?
6. ANALYSIS:
6.1 To address the above issues, issues, the second aspect of the issue involved is being dealt first:-
first 18 O.A. No. 4566/2018 Item No. 29 (C-4) 6.2 We e have to first examine, as to whether whether, a second divorce petition on the same grounds is maintainable after the dismissal of the first divorce petition?
6.3 The doctrine of res judicata has been dealt with under Section 11 of CPC read with Order 2 Rule 2 CPC.
6.4 Section 11of CPC reads read as under ::-
"No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit."
6.5 Order 2 Rule 2 mandates that a plaintiff must include their entire claim related to a specific cause of action in one law suit.. If the plaintiff intentionally or unintentionally omits a part of the claim, they cannot file a separate suit for it without the court's permission. 6.6 In the present context, Section 10 of THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984 would be relevant. The same is extracted herein below:-
below:
"10. Procedure generally.--(1) (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act and the rules, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) and of any other 19 O.A. No. 4566/2018 Item No. 29 (C-4) law for the time being in force shall apply to the suits and proceedings [other than the proceedings under Chapt Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)] before a Family Court and for the purposes of the said provisions of the Code, a Family Court shall be deemed to be a civil court and shall have all the powers of such court.
(2) Subject to the other her provisions of this Act and the rules, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or the rules made thereunder, shall apply to the proceedings under Chapter IX of that Code before a Family Court.
(3) Nothing in sub-section section (1) or sub-section (2) shall prevent a Family Court from laying down its own procedure with a view to arrive at a settlement in respect of the subject-matter matter of the suit or proceedings or at the truth of the facts alleged by the one party and denied by the other."
6.7 The Hon'ble Supreme Court has recently reiterated that the principle of res judicata cannot be invoked as a ground for the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). T The guiding principles for deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) can be summarized as follows: (i) To reject a plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by any law, only the averments in the plaint will have to be referred to; (ii) The defense made by the defendant in the suit mu must not be considered while deciding the merits of the application; (iii) To determine whether a suit is barred by res judicata, it is necessary that (i) the 'previous suit' is decided, (ii) the issues in the subsequent suit were directly and substantially in issue in the former suit; (iii) the former suit was between the same parties or parties through whom 20 O.A. No. 4566/2018 Item No. 29 (C-4) they claim, litigating under the same title; and (iv) that these issues were adjudicated and finally decided by a court competent to try the subsequent suit; and (iv) Since an adjudication of the plea of res judicata requires consideration of the pleadings, issues and decision in the 'previous suit', such a plea will be beyond the scope of Order 7 Rule 11 (d), where only the statements in the plaint will have to be perused. ( Ref: Civil Appeal No 4665 2021 arising out of SLP (C) No.3899 of 2021 Srihari Hanumandas Totala Versus Hemant Vithal Kamat & Ors. 09.08.2021).
6.8 The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Mat. Appeal No. 383 of 2016 decided ided On: 06.03.2019 titled as "Sunil Sunil Kumar K. K Vs. Prasobha Devi D. and Ors.
Ors., held as under:-
"11. On hearing learned counsel appearing on both sides, we find that the court below failed to examine as to whether the objection to the maintainability of O.P. required a preliminary hearing under Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code. It is true that grounds of desertion and cruelty were over again urged as independent grounds for dissolution of marriage in the subsequent O.P. also. Even if same grounds are taken in the subsequent proceeding for divorce, no bar of res judicata could apply as long as the cause of action for the subsequent proceeding remains to be different.21 O.A. No. 4566/2018
Item No. 29 (C-4)
12. So far as grounds for dissolution in matrimonial matters are concerned, they are of continuing o or recurring nature. A spouse who suffered dismissal of original petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty, desertion and adultery is not precluded from suing again for dissolution on the same grounds, provided the relief is founded on new new facts. Cause of action means a bundle of facts constituting the right of a party which he has to establish in order to obtain a relief from a court. The facts which constitute the grounds of cruelty, desertion or adultery as the case may be, are likely to vary giving rise to different causes of action depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. When cause of action is of continuing and recurring nature, the subsequent litigation for divorce brought on same grounds disregarding the dismissal of former O.P. will not be barred by res judicata.
13. Cause of action founded on acts of cruelty and desertion cannot be said to be always fixed or stable, preventing it from being a fresh ground for dissolution of the marriage. If incidents giving rise to cruelty and desertion are different, cause of action will also differ depending on facts and circumstances. Same is the principle when cause of action relates to adultery also. Even assuming that the appellant failed to establish ground of adultery in the former O.P. No. 687/2012, nothing precludes the appellant from urging the same ground of adultery in the subsequent O.P. on new set of facts constituting adultery."
Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in C.R.P.No. 3753 of 2019 decided on 10.01.2023.
22O.A. No. 4566/2018 Item No. 29 (C-4) 6.9 From the above discussions, it is apparent that there is no bar or any provisions which restricts or prohibits filing of second divorce petition. The Family Court's can devise their own procedure with a view to arrive at the truth of the facts alleged by the one party and denied by the other in respect of suit or proceeding before it to sub serve object of the Act to provide for the establishment of Family Courts with a view to promote conciliation and secure speedy speedy settlement of, disputes relating to marriage and family affairs and matters connected therewith. Accordingly, this issue issue is addressed in affirmative to say that second divorce petition is maintainable after the dismissal of the first divorce petition.
7. Now coming to the claim of divorced daughter's entitlement to family pension.
7.1 In Poonamal vs. Union of India, (1985) 3 SCC 345 345, wherein the purpose for which 'family pension' is granted, was highlighted by the Apex Court in the following words:
"Family pension came to be conceptualised in the year 1950. When a Government servant die in harness or soon after retirement, in the traditional Indian family on the death of the only earning member, the widow or the minor children were not only rendered orphans but faced more often destitution and starvation. Traditionally speaking the widow was hardly in a position to obtain gainful 23 O.A. No. 4566/2018 Item No. 29 (C-4) employment. She suffered the most in as much as she was deprived of the companionship of the husband and also became economically ically orphaned. As a measure of socioeconomic justice family pension scheme was devise to help the widows tie over the crisis and till the minor children attain majority to extend them some succour. This appeared to be the underlying motivation in devisin devising the family pension scheme. It was liberalised from time to time. The liberalisation was however subject to the condition that the Government Servant had in his life time agreed that he shall make a contribution of an amount equal to two months' emolument emoluments or Rs. 5,000 whichever is less out of the death- cum retirement gratuity. Those Government servants who did not accept this condition were denied the benefit of family pension scheme.
scheme."
7.2 The entitlement of widowed/divorced daughters would continue to be determined in terms of O.M., dated 25/30th August, 2004, read with O.M., dated 28.4.2011. The rule position qua the eligibility of widowed/divorced daughters for grant of family pension came into force by virtue of the OM dated 30.08.2004 issued by Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare Welfare wherein the issue of grant of family pension to the divorced daughter came up for consideration and was accepted.
7.3 By virtue
virtue of the OM dated 11.6.2006
widowed/divorc
widowed/divorced daughters beyond 25 years of age came within the purview to be extended the benef benefit of family pension.
24O.A. No. 4566/2018 Item No. 29 (C-4) 7.4 Later on by an OM dated 11.09.2013 issued by Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare in C Clauses 4 and 5 it was clarified as under:
"4.
4. It is clarified that the family p pension is payable to the children as they are considered to be dependent on the Government servant/pensioner or his/her spouse. A child who is not earning equal to or more than the sum of minimum family pension and dearness relief thereon is considered to be dependent on hislher parents. Therefore, only those children who are dependent and meet other conditions of eligibility for family pension at the time of death of the Government servant or hislher spouse, whichever is later, are eligible for family pens pension.
If two or more children are eligible for family pension at that time, family pension will be payable to each child on hislher turn provided he/she is still eligible for family pension when the turn comes. Similarly, family pension to a widowed/divorce widowed/divorced daughter is payable provided she fulfils all eligibility conditions at the time of death/ineligibility of her parents and on the date her turn to receive family pension comes.
5. As regards opening of old cases, a daughter if eligible, as explained in the preceding paragraph, may be granted family pension with effect from 30th August, 2004. The position is illustrated through an example. Shri A, a pensioner, died in 1986. He was survived by his wife, Smt. B, a son Shri C and a daughter, Kumari D, the daughter daughter being the younger. Kumari D married in 1990 and got widowed in 1996. Smt. B died in 2001. Thereafter, Shri C was getting family pension, being disabled, and died in 2003. Thereafter, the family pension was stopped as Kumari D was not eligible for it at that time. She applied for family pension on the basis of O.M., dated 30th August, 2004. Since she was a widow and had no independent source of income at the time of death of her mother and on the date her turn came, she may be granted family pension. The family pension will continue only till she remarries or starts earning her livelihood equal to or more than the sum of minimum family pension and dearness relief thereon."
thereon."
7.5 The aforesaid OMs were followed by another OM dated
18.09.2014 issued by Ministry
Ministry of Personnel, Public
Grievances and Pensions, Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare. Clause 3 of the same, reads as under: 25 O.A. No. 4566/2018
Item No. 29 (C-4) "3.
3. It was further clarified vide OM dated 11thSeptember, 2013 that if a daughter became a divorcee/widow during the pe period when the pension/family pension was payable to her father/mother, such a daughter, on fulfilment of other conditions, shall be entitled to family, pension. The clarification was aimed at correctly interpreting the conditions of eligibility of a widowed/divorced widowed/divorced daughter in terms of the concept of family pension under the CCS (pension) Rules, 1972. It was also stated that it was only a clarification and the entitlement of widowed/divorced daughter would continue to be determined in terms of OM dated 25th/30th 25th/30th August, 2004 read with OM dated 28111 April, 2011. It implies that the family pension should discontinue in those cases where it had been sanctioned in pursuance of these OM but without taking into consideration that the widowed/divorced daughter wa was leading a married life at the time of death of her father/mother, whoever died later and was, therefore ineligible for family pension. It would be appropriate that in order to maintain equality before law, family pension payable to such daughters is disc discontinued. However, recovery of the already paid amount of family pension would be extremely harsh on them and should not be resorted to.to."
7.6 Subsequently, another OM dated 19.07.2017 was issued by Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare.
Clauses 5 and 6 of the same, read as under:
"5.
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 orce 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 proceedin proceedings had been filed in a competent court during the life-time 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 under rule 54 of the CCS (Pens (Pension) Rules, 1972.
In such cases, the family pension will commence from the date of divorce."26 O.A. No. 4566/2018
Item No. 29 (C-4) 7.7 CHAPTER VIII of The Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021 came to be notified on 20.12.
20.12.2021. Rule 50, envisages visages the provisions provisions with regard to Family Pension. Para 9 (a) of the same reads as under:
"(9)(a) (9)(a) If the deceased Government servant or the pensioner is not survived by a widow or widower or if the widow or widower dies or ceases to be eligible for family pension, family pension at the rate specified in sub sub-rule (2) shall be payable to the child or children who fulfil the following conditions:
(i) In the case of a son (other than a son suffering from a mental or physical disability) (including adopted son, step son and son born after retirement of the pensioner) unmarried, below the age of twenty twenty five years and not earning his livelihood;
(ii) In the case of a daughter (other than a daughter suffering from a mental or physical disability) (including adopted daughter, step daughter and daughter born after retirement of the pensioner) unmarried or widowed or divorced and not earning her livelihood."
7.8 On careful consideration of the aforesaid judgments, we find that in CWP No. 27707 of 2019 dated 28.05.2024, the learned Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab njab and Haryana in Para No. 7 held eld as under:
"7. It may be noticed that the family pension is to be paid to the daughter in order to see that widow or the divorced daughter is able to subsist herself. No justifiable reason has been given as to what difference it will make whether, the d daughter is divorced at the time of the death of her father or get divorced after the death of the father. The prime issue is whether, the divorced/widow daughters are entitled to be sustained by giving them family pension or not. Even if a daughter gets didivorce after the death of the father or become widow after the death of her father, she is entitled to be maintained. The classification which is being raised to decline the benefit that the father of the petitioner had died before the petitioner became wid widow, cannot be a ground to deny the benefit of family pension. The intention behind the extension of the said benefit is to be seen, which is that widow and divorced daughter needs to be maintained by 27 O.A. No. 4566/2018 Item No. 29 (C-4) giving them family pension. Hence, benefit of family pen pension should be extended irrespective whether, the daughter becomes widow or divorced after the death or was widow or divorced at the time of the death. Hence, the reasons being given by the respondents to deny the benefit is arbitrary and illegal and withoutut looking into the claim for which the benefit was extended in favour of the widow or divorced daughter. Hence, from the date of the death of the husband of the petitioner, the respondents are directed to restore the family pension of the petitioner and the the petitioner be paid all the arrears starting from the said date. Let the order be complied with within a period of eight weeks of the receipt of copy of this order."
7.9 There is yet another decision by the Principal Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal in in OA No. 1209/2019 wherein in para Nos. 27 to 29, the following observations were made:
"27 Thus, we hold that the artificial distinction created vide MoD letter no. 1(9)/2013-D(Pen/Policy) 1(9)/2013 D(Pen/Policy) dated 17.11.2017 vide para 4 thereof in relation to divorced daughters of Armed Forces Personnel who have instituted divorce proceedings in competent courts after the demise of the deceased pensioner parent and also after the demise on his her spouse though the divorce undoubtedly took place and despite being entit entitled as a claimant fulfilling all other conditions for grant of family pension to decline them the right of family pension, is wholly unconstitutional
28. The date of institution of divorce proceedings by a daughter cannot determine her dependency on her p parents nor on the estate at her parents. Thus, the unspelt limitation embedded vide MoD letter no 1(9)2013- 1(9)2013 D(Pen-Policy) Policy) dated 17.11.2017 on the grant of family pension to a divorced daughter only where the divorce proceedings were instituted by her prior to the demise of the spouse of the deceased pensioner even though she does get divorced and fulfills all other conditions for grant of family pension, is wholly violative and discriminatory at the right of equality to all the divorced daughters for the gr grant of family pension if otherwise entitled to. The said unspelt limitation in the MoD letter no 1(9)/2013 1(9)/2013-D(Pen/Policy) is thus set aside.
29. It is also essential to observe that a contention was sought to be raised through the counter affidavit filed o on behalf of the respondents dated 17.01 2020 that the grant of decree of divorce to the applicant vide decree dated 18.12. 2018 was u/s 13 B (2) of Hindu Marriage Act 1955 and was thus the grant of divorce through 'mutual consent' and thus the 28 O.A. No. 4566/2018 Item No. 29 (C-4) applicant would would not be entitled to the grant of family pension. The said submission is wholly unwarranted and does not take into account the several reasons for which divorce through mutual consent may place. The distinction sought to be drawn between a mutual consent consent divorce or on any other grounds to deprive pension to a divorced daughter entitled to the same is wholly fallacious. In any event, even s per the MoD letter no. 1(9)2013 D(Pen Policy) dated 17.11. 2017 there has been no 1(9)2013-D(Pen distinction created in relation to a divorce that takes place of a daughter of a deceased pensioner who has expired and whose spouse has also expired. whether the divorce was granted vide a decree of divorce through mutual consent or for any reason in terms of the various enactments prescr prescribed by law"
7.10 In SLP (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 17706/2017 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 29 29-07-2016 in LPA No. 1721/2015 passed by the High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh) titled as UNION OF INDIA Vs KHAJANI DEVI & ORS dated 27.9.2019 27.9.2019, the following was observed:
" Delay condoned.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We are of the view that the impugned order adopts a progressive and socially constructive approach to give benefits to daughter who was divorced treating her at parity with the un un-married daughter. We fully agree with this view. No ground for interference is made out. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed."
7.11. A Curative Petition (CIVIL) No No. 181 OF 2021 in Review Petition (CIVIL) No. No. 62 OF 2021 in above SLP No 23553 OF 2019 UNION OF INDIA Vs (CIVIL) No. KHAJANI DEVI & ORS.
ORS The same was also dismissed vide order dated 21.09.2022,
21. observing as under
under:-29 O.A. No. 4566/2018
Item No. 29 (C-4) "We have gone through the curative petition and the relevant documents.
In our opinion, no case is made out within the parameters indicated in the decision of this Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra & Another, (2002) 4 SCC 388 The Curative Petition is, therefore, dismissed."388.
7.12. The various OM(s) issued from time to time reflect that the Pension Rules have been suppl supplemented to sub-
serve the effective implementation of issues pertaining to grant of family pension with dynamic dynamics of the society needs and living pattern.. The fact cannot be ignored that over the years there has been rapid increase in cases of divorce. Needless to say the provision for grant of pension to divorced daughter was very much there. Earlier, it was upto the age of 25 years, years, which later was extended beyond 25 years. The respondents have also recognized the fact that department has been receiving grievances from various quarters that the divorce proceedings are a "long drawn procedure" which take many years before attaining finality.
inality. 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 divo divorce was granted by the competent authority. 30 O.A. No. 4566/2018 Item No. 29 (C-4) 7.13. The rules and the clarifications issued from time to time by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare would clearly spell out two mandatory conditions. Firstly, that the applicant ought to be divorced daughter and secondly, should have been dependent upon the Government servant to enable her to get the benefit of grant of family pension.
pension. The issue of dependency is to be adjudicated in terms of the OM dated 26.10.2022 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare on the subject "Documents regarding income required to be submitted ubmitted for deciding eligibility for grant of family pension under Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021" wherein in Clause 3, the following is stipulated:
"3. In order to decide the eligibility for family pension, a member of the family, other than the widow or widower of the deceased Government servant or pensioner, is required to submit, along with the claim for family pension, a copy of the last Income Tax Return filed by the said member of the family with the Income Tax Department. In case thethe said member of the family informs that he or she has not filed the Income Tax Return with the Income Tax Department, he or she shall submit a certificate of income from a sub-divisional sub divisional magistrate. In case the member of the family is not able to submit either a copy of the Income Tax Return or a certificate of income from a sub sub-divisional magistrate, the Head of Office may rely on any other document produced by the said member of the family in support of his or her claim regarding income and decide the e eligibility of the said member of the family for family pension accordingly."31 O.A. No. 4566/2018
Item No. 29 (C-4) 7.14. The he family pension shall be payable to a divorced daughter from the date of divorce divorce, if the divorce proceedings were filed in a competent court. As already recognized that divorce proceedings are not only "long drawn procedure" which take many years before attaining finality but also bundle of facts which which may be recurring in nature. There here can be no straight jacket formula to arrive at a definite conclusion having regard regard to the effective date of divorce whether it was before or after death of the government servant, it it can be only illustra illustrative. The only requirement is that the he family pension shall be payable to a divorced daughter from the date of divorce if the divorce proceedings were filed in a competent court and she was dependent upon government servant during his/her lifetime. Hence, it can be safely said that family pension is a socio- economic welfare measure for which purposive interpretation have to be given to Statute Rules/Schemes. 7.15 The case of the applicant for grant of family pension has been rejected vide the impugned order dated 10.05.2018, which reads as under:-
u "सं दभ:-
: Dy. Director E(Rep)-III III Railway Board New Delhi Letter No- E(Rep)III2017/5-114 E(Rep)III2017/5 114 pt dated 20.02.2018 उपरो संदभप केस मआपकोसूिचतिकयाजाताहेिकआपकातलाक आपकेिपताके गवासिदनां क 22.11.2009 केप ातिदनांक 32 O.A. No. 4566/2018 Item No. 29 (C-4) 23.05.2012 को आहे ।मु०क०सं० 14092/2013 िदनां क 11.10.2013, प सं० 720E/51/Pension /2012/EIV एं वप सं ा F(E)iii/2007/PNi/5 F(E)iii/2007/PNi/5-dt-23.08.2017 कोतहतआपपा रवा रकपे नकीपा नहींहै।"
7.16 The denial in the present case is based on having obtained divorce after after death of government servant. The respondents have not made any enquiry to the contrary that the he record reveals that the applicant is a divorcee daughter of late Shri Puran Chand Khanna, who retired as a Head Clerk from DRM's office, Moradabad. T There is no denial to the facts that on account of differences with her husband, the applicant came back after marriage to her parents house in the year 2002 and was liv living with her father, till he expired on 22.11.2009. Since the relations of the applicant with her husband were bad, th the applicant came back to her parents house after marriage in the year 2002 and started living with her parents and in spite of negotiations conducted by her late father father, the relations with the applicant's husband did not improve improve. Ultimately, the applicant filed a Suit for divorce being No.406/2009, which was however, dismissed vide judgment dated 12.05.2010. We also find that the first Suit filed by the applicant was dismissed by the concerned Court. However, it is also not in dispute that subsequent Suit ffiled by the 33 O.A. No. 4566/2018 Item No. 29 (C-4) applicant was allowed. The Government servant, who was the father of the applicant, applicant retired from service in the year, 1977 and expired in the year 2009. Various representation were preferred by the applicant for grant of representations family pension to her being a dependent not only during the lifetime but thereafter too.
to It is not even the case of the respondents that the applicant has either misrepresented or made a false representation qua the fact that she was residing with her father during the pendency of the divorcee litigation. The rejection itself clearly goes on to show that it is only based ed on the premises that divorce is obtained after the death of government servant and as such there in no finding that the applicant was dependent upon the government servant.
7.17. Having said so, so we observe that for conside consideration of family pension and grant of the same, the Pension Disbursing Authority needs to satisfy the following pre- requisite site conditions:-
conditions:
(a) The claimant
c ought to be a divorced daughter
daughter.
(b) She ought to have been dependant on her parent or
parents when he or she or they were alive.34 O.A. No. 4566/2018
Item No. 29 (C-4)
(c) The family pension shall be payable to a divorced daughter from the date of divorce.
divorce
(d) Divorced ivorced daughter shall get pension until she gets married or re-married re married or until she starts earning her livelihood.
(e) It shall be the duty of son or daughter or the guardian to furnish a certificate to the Pension Disbursing Authority once in a year to the effect that,-
(i) she has not started earning his or her livelihood; and
(ii) She has not yet married or remarried and a similar certificate certificate shall be furnished by the son or daughter suffering suffering from a mental or physical disability to the Pension Disbursing Authority once in a year that he or she has not started earning his or her livelihood.
7.18. In view of the above analysis and discussions, this Tribunal answers answers the issue No. 1 also in favor of the applicant.
35O.A. No. 4566/2018 Item No. 29 (C-4)
8. CONCLUSION:-
CONCLUSION:
8.1. The impugned Order dated 10.05.2018 is quashed and set aside.
8.2. The OA is allowed. The Pension Disbursing Authority amongst the respondent(s) is directed to pass appropriate order(s) for grant of family pension from the date of divorce divorce, if the applicant otherwise fulfills other conditions subject to her furnishing furnish a certificate that she has yet not started earning her livelihood. The applicant sh shall also be entitled to arrears.. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
8.3. All pending applications, applications if any,, shall also disposed of.
8.4. No costs.
(Manish Garg) Member (J) /as/