Ms. Uma Sarkar Vs Union of India

¶1

1

¶2

SATISH TUMANE

¶3

Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE Date: 2026.01.14 14:31:49 +0530

¶4

2026:CGHC:1639-DB

¶5

NAFR

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

WPS No.193 of 2026

¶8

Ms. Uma Sarkar D/o Late Upendra Nath Sarkar Aged About 56 Years Ex.SS/JTI, R/o Shanker Nagar, Near Hussain Kirana Store, Railway Crossing, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

... Petitioner(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - Union Of India Through The General Manager, 5th Floor, Gm Office, SEC Railways, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Personnel Officer Office Of Department Of Personnel, Bilaspur Division, SEC Railway, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Divisional Personnel Officer Department Of Personnel, Office Of DRM, SEC Railway, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Shri Lavkush Kumar Sahu appears along with Shri Syed Afaque Hussain Rizvi, Advocates

¶14

For Respondent(s) : Shri Ramakant Mishra, DSGI appears along with Ms. Shweta Rai, Advocate

¶15

DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶16

Order On Board

¶17

Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J 12/01/2026

¶18

1. The petitioner, being a divorced daughter, has filed this petition questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 27/10/2025 (Annexure P-12), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench (Circuit Sitting at Bilaspur) in Original Application No.343 of 2023, whereby, re-authorization of family pension has been

¶19

2

¶20

refused to her, while affirming the order dated 03/03/2022 passed by the Respondent Department.

¶21

1. From perusal of the record, it appears that the father of the petitioner, namely, Upendra Nath Sarkar was retired from the Railway Services on 31/05/2000 and died subsequently on 30/09/2005 and, on account of his sad demise, his wife, namely, Smt. Usha Sarkar has availed the family benefits till her life time, i.e. up to 29/05/2019, when she died. It appears further that the petitioner, being a divorced daughter, moved an application (Annexure P-5) on 22/08/2019 before the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, South Eastern Central Railway, Bilaspur, seeking grant/re-authorization of family pension. The said application was rejected by the Respondent Department on 03/03/2022 (Annexure P-8) holding that by virtue of the Railway Establishment No.152/2017, she is not entitled to get the said benefit, as she was found to be divorced after the death of her parents and, the said observation was affirmed further by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench in an Original Application No.343 of 2023 filed by the petitioner and, being aggrieved, the instant petition has been filed.

¶22

1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the proceeding for divorce was already initiated by the petitioner’s husband during the lifetime of her parents, therefore, the application as rejected by the Respondent Authorities, affirmed by the Central Administrative Tribunal vide its order impugned, cannot be held to be sustainable in the eye of law and deserves to be quashed.

¶23

1. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that since the decree of divorce was granted after the death of

¶24

3

¶25

the petitioner’s parents, therefore, in view of the Railway Establishment Rules No.152/2017, her claim has rightly been refused.

¶26

1. We have learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire papers carefully.

¶27

1. It is to be seen at this juncture, the Office Memorandum dated 19/07/2017 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, P.G. & Pensions, Department of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare, which is applicable to the Respondent Department as well, is relevant for the purpose, which reads as under :-

¶28

Ministry of Personnel, P.G. & Pensions Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare

¶29

3^rd floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi, 19^th July, 2017

¶30

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

¶31

Sub:- Eligibility of divorced daughters for grant of family pension-clarification regarding.

¶32

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.

¶33

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. 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.

¶34

It was clarified, vide this department Office Memorandum of even number, dated 11 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

¶35

4

¶36

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, 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.

¶37

It was clarified that a daughter if eligible, as explained in the preceding paragraph, may be granted family pension provided she fulfills all eligibility conditions at the time of death/ineligibility of her parents and still on the date her turn to receive family pension comes. Accordingly, 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 life time of at least one of the parents.

¶38

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 employees/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 was granted by the competent authority.

¶39

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 fulfills all other conditions for grant of family pension under rules 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. In such cases, the family pension will commence from the date of divorce.

¶40

This issues with the concurrence of Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, vide their ID No. I(II)/EV/2017, dated 7 July, 2017.

¶41

Sd/-(D.K.Solanki) Under Secretary to the Government of India

¶42

1. A bare perusal of aforesaid Memorandum, which is applicable to the Railway Department as well, particularly clause 6, would show that a

¶43

5

¶44

family pension can be granted to a divorced daughter where the divorce proceedings had already been initiated before a competent court during the life time of the employee/pensioner or his/her spouse, though the divorce has taken place after their death, provided the complainant fulfills all other conditions for grant of family pension under rules 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and, in such cases, the family pension will commence from the date of divorce.

¶45

In the instant matter, though the petitioner’s husband, namely, Brojeswar Majumdar had filed an application for obtaining the decree of divorce on mutual ground under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, but the same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Nadia vide order dated 13/01/1988 (Annexure P-2) in Matrimonial Case No.47/1987. It, thus, appears that though the said proceeding was initiated by the petitioner’s husband, seeking dissolution of marriage during the life time of her parents, but no decree as such was granted therein and, the petitioner was kept silent during the lifetime of her parents and, instead has moved an application seeking dissolution of marriage only on 23/12/2020 on the ground enumerated under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, registered as Matrimonial Suit No.407/2020, where the decree for dissolution of marriage was granted to her on 05/10/2021 (Annexure P-6) by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court II, Bongaon, North 24 Parganas. Though, the decree for dissolution of marriage was granted to her as such, but the said proceeding was, however, initiated by her only after the death of her parents,

¶46

6

¶47

therefore, in view of the Office Memorandum dated 19/07/2017 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, P.G. & Pensions, Department of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare, which is applicable to the Respondent Department, i.e. under the Railway Establishment No.152/2017, she would not be entitled to avail the said benefit.

¶48

Consequently, we do not find any infirmity in the order impugned passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench in Original Application No.343/2023 refusing to grant her family pension. The petition being devoid of merit, is accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage itself.

¶49

No order as to costs.

¶50

SD/- SD/(Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge

¶51

Tumane

Ms. Uma Sarkar v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms. Uma Sarkar v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rambachan Yadav Vs Vijay Gupta

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Merigold Impex

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Shri Gurpreet Singh Bhatia

Vishnu Verma Vs Jati Ram Sahu and others

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Jatiram Sahu

Gayaram Dhruv Vs Khoju @ Anugrah And Anr.