Dismissed

Kamini Agarwal v. Union of India Thru. the Secy. Ministry of Defence and 4 Others

Allahabad HC24 Jan 2025/957/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed a writ petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's dismissal of a claim for family pension. The court found insufficient material to establish dependency, noting the divorce was filed years after the pensioner's death and no income sources were disclosed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as it was deemed bereft of merit under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Kamini Agarwal Vs Union of India Thru. the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:4785-DB

¶2

Court No. - 1

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 957 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Kamini Agarwal

¶5

Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. The Secy. Ministry Of Defence And 4 Others

¶6

Counsel for Petitioner :- Priyanka Singh,Abhay Pratap Singh,Devang Singh Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.

¶7

Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶8

Heard Ms. Priyanka Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri S.B. Pandey, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India assisted by Shri Dev Rishi Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.

¶9

This writ petition filed by the petitioner has questioned the legality of the judgment and order rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No.332/00093/2021 on 05.01.2024, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the OA claiming the benefit of family pension on the ground of being the dependent of the pensioner late Jagdish Prasad Singhal, who died on 26.12.2002 leaving behind his widow upon whom the right of family pension devolved up to 02.02.2009 when she also died.

¶10

The right of family pension as a dependent has been claimed in the backdrop of the fact that the present petitioner being in estranged relationship with her husband was living separately ever since the year 1990 although the marriage with one Raj Kishore Agrawal was solemnized in the year 1973. The details of the siblings have not been disclosed either before the Tribunal or in the present writ petition.

¶11

Upon the death of petitioner's mother in the year 2009, it appears that the Department had sought certain informations in the prescribed format vide letter dated 20.05.2013 for processing the case of the petitioner insofar as the right of family pension is concerned. The relevant documents which were liable to be furnished were not supplied till the year 2017, when, it is averred that the petitioner having instituted the proceedings of mutual divorce under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act had succeeded in obtaining a legitimate divorce decree in Regular Suit No.554 of 2017 on 17.09.2017. The documents in terms of the letter dated 20.05.2013 were supplied thereafter to the departmental authorities.

¶12

On consideration of the petitioner's claim by the competent authority an order came to be passed on 18.12.2019, which was communicated to her vide letter dated 15.01.2020. The petitioner appears to have reiterated her claim for grant of

¶13

family pension as against the order dated 18.12.2019 but the same was again turned down vide order dated 26.11.2020 communicated to her vide letter dated 19.12.2020.

¶14

The orders passed by the competent authority on 18.12.2019 and 26.11.2020 came to be challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal in the aforementioned O.A.

¶15

On exchange of the pleadings before the Tribunal, the claim of family pension has come to be rejected by recording detailed reasons.

¶16

The Tribunal while adjudicating upon the claim has referred to the circular of the Ministry dated 19.07.2017 of which the relevant part is extracted in the impugned judgment itself and the same for ready reference is reproduced hereunder:-

¶17

"6. The matter has been examined in this department in consultation with Department of Expenditure and it has been decided to grant family pension to a divorced daughter in such cases where the divorce proceedings had been filed in a competent court during the life-time of the employee pensioner 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."

¶18

The learned Tribunal has rejected the claim on the premise that on the date of death of the pensioner or his widow, no proceedings whatsoever as regards divorce of the present petitioner were pending or had been decided or instituted during their lifetime. The proceedings having taken place much after the death of the pensioner or his widow has thus culminated into the rejection of claim and reasoning to this effect has been recorded by the Tribunal in terms of the circular extracted above.

¶19

Right of family pension under the service rules is not available as a matter of course but the quantum thereof is to be ascertained having regard to the sources of income of the claimant who may institute any such proceedings laying a claim in the backdrop of his or her income. In order to meet the shortfall, the right is to be asserted by disclosure of all the relevant facts.

¶20

In the present case the petitioner who has lived separately ever since 1990 has not categorically asserted the source of her income upon which she had rested her livelihood. All these years until the papers were submitted before the departmental authorities in the year 2017, what was her income and what quantum of family pension she was entitled to, has not been spelled out in categorical terms by disclosing the means of livelihood. Secondly, the delay in laying the claim by itself indicates very many mitigating factors dispelling her dependence upon the family pension.

¶21

Be that as it may, the reasons accorded by the Tribunal in the light of circular placed reliance upon do not appear to be faulty, more-so, when the dependence

¶22

in the light of quantum of pension to which the petitioner may have been entitled to, remains undisclosed.

¶23

Having regard to the entirety of the material before us, we are not convinced that a case of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out.

¶24

Thus, the writ petition bereft of any merit is accordingly dismissed .

¶25

[Subhash Vidyarthi,J.] [Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.]

¶26

Order Date :- 24.1.2025 Mohd. Sharif

¶27

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kamini Agarwal v. Union of India Thru. the Secy. Ministry of Defence and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamini Agarwal v. Union of India Thru. the Secy. Ministry of Defence and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Yogendra Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Irrigation and Water Resources Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Muneer Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Gram Vikas Lko. and 7 Others

Ajay Singh Rana Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko and 5 Others

No. 13962092 W Ex Hav Ram Shankar Vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence New Delhi and 3 Others

Biswjeet Bala Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical Education and 5 Others

Biswjeet Bala vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical Education and 5 Others