The court established that a divorced daughter is not entitled to family pension unless she demonstrates dependency on her deceased parent at the time of death and initiates divorce proceedings during their lifetime.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.

1. The subject matter of the instant writ petition is the order dated 11.05.2023 as passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the said Tribunal in short) in OA No. 350/1616/2022 whereby and whereunder the said Tribunal while allowing the said original application of the respondent/ original applicant directed the appellant authority i.e. the Union of India and its instrumentalities to disburse family pension to the respondent/original applicant within 8 weeks from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of the impugned order.

2. The aforementioned authorities felt aggrieved and thus, preferred the instant writ petition.

3. For effective adjudication of the instant writ petition some relevant facts are required to be dealt with and those are stated hereinbelow in seriatim:-

(i) One Ranjit Kumar Chatterjee, since deceased, the father of the respondent/original applicant was employed as Senior Auditor in Accounts Office, Riffle Factory, Ichhapore and he was superannuated on 31.01.1996.

(ii) One Smt. Bandana Chatterjee, the spouse of late Ranjit Kumar Chatterjee pre-deceased her husband on 29.01.1991.

(iii) The said Ranjit Kumar Chatterjee, since deceased, the ex-employee of the appellants/authorities as well as being the pensioner died on 10.07.2003.

(iv) The respondent/original applicant being married daughter of late Ranjit Kumar Chatterjee filed a suit for divorce in the year 2016.

(v) The said matrimonial suit was decreed on 24.06.2016.

(vi) On 13.02.2017, the respondent/ original applicant submitted an application for grant of family pension before the writ petitioners/ authorities as a divorced daughter.

(vii) By a memo dated 06.03.2017, the Respondent No. 5 rejected such application for grant of family pension.

(viii) The said order of rejection dated 06.03.2017 was challenged by the respondent herein before the said Tribunal by filing OA No. 1594 of 2017 which came to be disposed on 24.03.2022.

(ix) The said tribunal by the said order dated 24.03.2022 directed the writ petitioners/ authorities to reconsider the matter by taking into account the financial condition of the respondent/ original applicant.

(x) In terms of the said order dated 24.03.2022 as passed by the said Tribunal, the respondent authorities, more specifically the Respondent No. 4 authority by its speaking order dated 23.06.2022 came to a finding that the respondent/original applicant is not eligible for grant of family pension.

(xi) The said speaking order dated 23.06.2022 was subject matter of challenge in OA No. 350/1616/2022 which came to be disposed of by an order dated 11.05.2023 which is impugned in this writ petition.

4. At the time of hearing Ms. Alam, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners/ authorities at the very outset took us to Page no 6 and Page No. 8 of the impugned order. It is submitted by Ms. Alam that the said Tribunal while passing the impugned order has failed to visualize the true spirit of the office memo dated 19.07.2017 which clarifies the eligibility of a divorced daughter for obtaining family pension in terms of the provisions of Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules in short)