Family pension eligibility is determined by the rules in effect at the time of a parent's death, and administrative changes cannot retroactively alter established rights.

JUDGMENT

1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 14.08.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (herein after referred to as 'the Tribunal') by which the original application filed by the respondent No.1 has been allowed.

2. The facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy involved in the present petition are that father of Smt. Hemlata Sharma, namely; Shri Bhanwar Lal Sharma, who was a retired railway employee and while being a pensioner died on 04.04.1992. His widow (mother of the applicant Hemlata Sharma) started getting family pension. On 08.05.2007, employee's widow also died. Original applicant Smt. Hemlata Sharma, who was admittedly leading a married life at the time of death of her father and mother both, had strained marital relationship with her husband and it was her case that by an agreement, she and her husband agreed to divorce. She applied for grant of family pension on 07.09.2007, but it was not granted.

3. Original applicant, thereafter, obtained a decree of divorce from a court of competent jurisdiction on 04.05.2009 and again approached the authorities claiming pension. This time, the claim was accepted and an order was passed on 19.04.2010 granting her family pension. After about four years, a circular/clarification came to be issued on 18.09.2014 according to which, a widowed/divorced daughter, who was leading a married life at the time of death of her father/mother, whoever died later, was ineligible for family pension. Further direction issued was that in order to maintain equality before law, family pension payable to such daughters be discontinued, but no recovery shall be made of the amount which has already been paid to them earlier. This led to passing of the impugned order against the original applicant on 18.10.2014, giving rise to original application before the Tribunal. The main contention of the original applicant raised before the Tribunal, which found favour also, was that the benefit of family pension was granted to the original applicant on the basis of the then existing rules and instructions, which did permit the grant of family pension even to a widowed/divorced daughter, who was leading a married life at the time of death of her father/mother, whoever died later. Such a policy being in vogue and existence, those who were granted family pension were entitled to continue and the same could not be withdrawn as the policy decision would always be prospective in nature and could not apply retrospectively.

4. According to the petitioners/non-applicants in the original application, no such policy ever existed, but under misconstruction & misinterpretation of earlier clarifications issued from time to time, which related to other aspects of eligibility, family pension was granted to the original applicant. This was because the earlier policy had not made it clear and vide office memorandum dated 18.09.2014, only a clarification was given and it is not a case that earlier such benefit was admissible under the rules or the circular and later on, it was sought to be withdrawn.

5. The learned Tribunal, however, took the view that under the rules and subsequent circulars issued from time to time until 18.09.2014, such benefit was admissible to divorced/widowed daughters, who were leading married life at the time of death of their father/mother, whoever died later. The Tribunal was also of the view that principles of natural justice were also not followed. The order was, therefore, set aside. The employer is, therefore, before us in this petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the provisions of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1993'), as amended from time to time as also all the circulars, which have been referred to in impugned OM dated 18.09.2014 and other circulars, would submit that neither the rules nor earlier instructions i