The recognition of customary divorce under Muslim Law and the absence of challenge to the divorce deed influenced the Court's decision in granting family pension to the divorced daughter.

JUDGMENT :

BIREN VAISHNAV, J.

1. This is a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 30.03.2017 passed in O.A. No.701 of 2016 with M.A. No.534 of 2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad.

2. By the aforesaid order, the application of the original applicant has been allowed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad, directing the original petitioners to take immediate steps to order for sanctioning family pension and to pay the arrears and continue to pay family pension to the original applicant before the Tribunal.

3. Facts in brief are as under:

3.1 The respondent no.1-original applicant (‘the respondent’ for short) had married to the respondent no.2 and got divorced as per their customs on 19.01.2009 and came back to her parental house.

3.2 The mother of the respondent was working with the petitioners as Safaiwali. She retired on 30.06.2016 and thereafter died on 11.07.2016. The respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad, to claim family pension.

3.3 Upon respondent making representation dated 17.01.2013 to the petitioner no.2, the Railway Board issued certain executives/Joint Procedure Order which were communicated through Headquarter Office, Mumbai vide letter dated 26.07.2013 informing the respondent to submit Divorce Deed issued by Court of Law in case of divorced daughter.

3.4 The Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare, Ministry of Personnel. P.G. & Pension, GOI, issued certain OM dated 11.09.2013 clarifying the eligibility of widowed/divorced daughters for grant of family pension.

3.5 Vide letter dated 25.09.2013 the respondent was advised to submit legal divorce certificate as per Court of Law. However, the respondent did not produce the divorce deed and instead submitted notarized copy of the customary divorce deed which was not sufficient for granting family pension.

3.6 Respondent no.1 thereafter made few representations to grant her family pension, in reply to which, the petitioners advised her to submit a legal Divorce Certificate issued by Court of Law.

3.7 The respondent thereafter sent a statutory notice dated 30.12.2014 to the Railway Administration to take prompt action regarding the issue, to which, the stand of the petitioners was the same.

3.8 The respondent thereafter filed O.A. No.701 of 2016 before the Central Administrative Tribunal with a prayer to quash the order dated 09.04.2014 directing the petitioners to release the family pension w.e.f. 11.07.2012 along with interest @ 12% with a further direction to the petitioners to continue to pay the family pension to the respondent.

3.9 The Tribunal allowed the O.A. filed by the respondent and granted the reliefs as sought for. Hence, this petition.

4. Ms.Archana Amin learned advocate for the petitioners made the following submissions:

4.1 That the impugned order is illegal, improper, unjust and contrary to the guidelines issued by the Government of India as well as the Joint Procedure Code.

4.2 Ms.Amin would further submit that the Tribunal committed a grave error by not considering the fact that since petitioners are acting as per the orders of the Railway Board, it is not possible for them to initiate any procedure for sanction of family pension in favour of the respondent no.1 as she is not falling within the category of eligible divorced daughter to receive family pension unless she submits legal decree of divorce issued by the competent Court.

4.3 Ms.Amin would submit that the petitioners had not questioned the validity of the alleged divorce deed but they insisted upon the divorce deed issued by a court of law as per the Joint Procedure Code, which is as per the law, and since the respondent no.1 is not falling within the category of eligible divorced daughter to receive family pension as she has not submitted legal decree of divorce issued by the competent Court.

4.4 Ms.Amin would further submit that the learned Tribunal has erred in condoning the inordinat