Writ petition challenging Central Administrative Tribunal order that quashed a Railway Office Memorandum regarding family pension eligibility for widowed/divorced daughters. The Court analyzed pension rules and government policy.
Tributary order dated 16.06.2016 set aside; Tribunal application dismissed; stay order vacated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE
PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE HARISH TANDON
&
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE RABINDRANATH SAMANTA
WP.CT 10 of 2017 Union Of India and Others _Vs Ratna Sarkar _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Ms.Aparna Banerjee. ….. for the Petitioners. Mr. Samir Chakraborty. ….. for the Respondent Heard On : 05.01.2022 Judgment on : 07.02.2022
Rabindranath Samanta, J:-
2
order dated 03.07.2015 and the order dated 01.07.2015
forthwith;
3
daughter of the deceased pensioner with arrears to be released within two months from the date of communication of the order.
Nitya Gopal Das, the father of the respondent Ratna Sarkar was driver/ RHA, Eastern Railway and he retired from service on superannuation on 10.09.1980. He was a railway pensioner and died on 19.05.1985. After the death of her father, her mother Namita Das was a recipient of family pension from the Eastern railway. She died on 05.05 1991.
The petitioner was married to one Hrishikesh Sarkar, but, he died untimely on 03.08.1993.
The petitioner came to learn that the Ministry of Railways, Government of India was sanctioning family pension to the widowed daughter of ex railway employee beyond the age of 25 years. She applied for family pension to the concerned authorities of Eastern Railway. In response to her application the appellant no.5, the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Eastern Railway, Sealdah Division, vide Memo dated 03.07.2009 directed the respondent to contact with the concerned office for execution of necessary forms
4
and documents for grant of family pension in her favour. Accordingly, she submitted all the required documents to the authority concerned. The family pension as applied by her was sanctioned to her with effect from 25.08.2004 vide P.P.O No. 02060661780 giving advice to the Manager, Central Bank of India, Kalyani Branch, Nadia for disbursement of family pension along with arrears thereto to her by the Assistant Divisional Finance Manager, Sealdah, Eastern Railway on 16.08.2010. But, the appellant no 4, the Divisional Railway Manager, Eastern Railway vide a Memo dated 28.01.2015 discontinued the family pension granted in favour of the respondent with immediate effect vide P.P.O No. 6617 in terms of C.P.O/KKK’s Serial No. 125/2014 on the ground that the widowed/divorcee daughter who got widowhood/ divorce after the death of the parents would not be considered eligible for family pension. On the other hand, the appellant no 6, the Senior Divisional Finance Manager, Eastern Railway vide Memo dated 11.02.2015 advised the disbursing branch of the concerned bank to discontinue family pension with immediate effect. The respondent submits that the provision for grant of family pension in favour of widowed/divorcee daughter beyond the age of 25 years was made vide office Memorandum dated 30.07.2004 and this provision has been included in clause (III) of subRule 54 (6) of Central Civil Services(Pension) Rules, 1972(in short CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972). It was clarified vide office Memorandum dated 11.09.2013 that if a daughter became
5
widowed/divorcee during the period when the pension/ family pension was payable to her father/ mother, such daughter on fulfilment of other conditions shall be entitled to family pension. Being aggrieved by the office Memorandum dated 28.01.2015 on discontinuance of family pension the respondent filed an application being no. 350/00728/2015 before the Tribunal. The Learned Tribunal vide order dated 01.06.2015 disposed of the application directing the respondent to make a comprehensive representation to the railway authorities and the railway authorities to dispose of the representation within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the representation by a reasoned order. But, the railway authorities, the petitioners herein, rejected her representation maintaining the order of discontinuation of the family pension against her.
6
The period from which the family pension is payable shall be as under :
i) in the case of a widow or widower, up to the date of death or re-marriage, whichever is earlier;
ii) in the case of a son, until he attains the age of 25 years; and
iii) in the case of unmarried daughter until she attains the age of 25 years or until she gets married whichever is earlier.
7
8
in order to maintain equality before law family pension payable to such daughter should be discontinued. However, recovery of the already paid amount of the family pension would be extremely harsh on them and should not be resorted to.
9
widowed/divorcee daughter of a pensioner beyond the age of 25 years.
10
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 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 the death of her father/mother. It will be unwise on the part of this Court to exercise its extraordinary or discretionary power to come to any inference contrary to the policy decision of the Government.
11
(Rabindranath Samanta,J.)
I agree,
(Harish Tandon,J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a widowed or divorcee daughter who was married at the time of the pensioner's death is entitled to family pension.
Whether the Office Memorandum dated 18.09.2014 declaring such eligibility discriminatory is ultra vires the Constitution.
Whether the High Court should quash the Tribunal order treating such a daughter as eligible for family pension.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Union of India and Others
Ratna Sarkar
Harish Tandon
Rabindranath Samanta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
