JUDGMENT :

S.R. BRAHMBHATT, J.

1. Heard learned counsels appearing for the parties. In both these petitions there is common question of law as to whether the divorced daughter for receiving the benefit of family pension is required to produce divorce decree duly authenticated or issued by the competent Court of law and be denied the said benefit in case if she only produces the customary divorce deed for seeking the benefit of family pension. Therefore, both the matters were listed together and are being heard and disposed of by the common judgment and order.

2. The petitioner - western railway, Union of India, has approached this Court by way of these petitions for assailing the judgment and order dated 14.12.2018 rendered in O.A. No.331 of 2017 and judgment and order dated 11.07.2017 rendered in O.A. No.319 of 2017, where under the present petitioner was directed to consider and grant the family pension to the applicant of the Original Applications on the basis of the reasoning and facts recorded there under.

3. The facts which are slightly different in both the petitions and judgment in fact affect the framing of the question of law deserve to be set out separately for ready reference as under:

Facts of Special Civil Application No.324 of 2018

(A) The original applicant in Original Application had to move the said Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal for seeking family pension as she was entitled to receive the same under Rule 75 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, as explained time and again by the authorities especially Government of India in respect of pari-materia provision of Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 in respect of the family pension.

(B) The applicant in Original Application No.319 of 2017 was residing with her mother on account of her customary divorce since December 1981 and her mother was a family pensioner, as the father died in 09.09.2006. The mother i.e. recipient of the family pension said to have communicated her written request to the authorities under her letter dated 08.09.2007 so as to incorporate the factum of her daughter's customary divorce and her residing with the family pensioner mother. Unfortunately, the said communication remain unheeded though before this Court the respondent in the Original Application and the present petitioners have taken the stand that said communication of 2007 had not been received by the concerned authority and it is contended by the counsel for the original applicant that the said stand is not taken before the Tribunal where the document was produced.

(C) The family pension recipient mother died on 25.10.2011 and on account of her demise the sole surviver in the family i.e. the original applicant – divorced daughter became eligible to receive family pension in her own steed. The original applicant approached the authority by making an application on 27.08.2012 indicating therein that the family recipient mother has died and she being divorced daughter residing with family pension recipient and indicating the dissolution of marriage, was thus entitled to receive family pension as per the provision of Rule 75 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules. The said application came to be rejected by the authorities on 19.12.2012 and she was called upon to produce a valid divorce decree from the competent Court. The factum of divorce i.e. customary divorce as put forward by the original applicant remain in disputed.

(D) The gentleman with whom she had married and taken customary divorce died on 09.07.2013. As the original applicant was under distress, had to approach once again the authority with whatever resources or provision available to her for sustaining herself by taking a shelter under the provision, which enures in favour of the widowed daughter of family pensioner, as though her customary divorce deed was not accepted, but after the demise of the person whom she had married, she approached the authority under the solemn hope that