The entitlement of a divorced daughter to a share of the family pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and relevant office memorandums.

JUDGMENT :

B.R. SARANGI, J.

1. Jyotsna Rani Mohanty, the widow of late Bansidhar Mohanty, being opposite party no. 5 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 12.03.2018 under Annexure-9 and to issue direction to opposite parties no. 3 and 4 not effect the family pension in favour of opposite party no. 5-divorced daughter of deceased government employee, who was applicant before the tribunal, and to hold that the petitioner is legally entitled to reimbursement of the family pension deducted from her dues on the plea that excess amount had been paid to the late husband of the petitioner and the same was utilized by some stranger.

2. The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that late Bansidhar Mohanty was appointed under the Central Rice Research Institute, Cuttack, a Central Government establishment, and while he was continuing as such, was promoted to the post of Asst. Administrative Officer. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of late Bansidhar Mohanty and out of their wedlock, they blessed with one daughter, namely, Swagatika Mohanty and a son, namely, Dipak Mohanty. On attaining the age of superannuation, late Bansidhar Mohanty was retired on 30.11.1994 and enjoying the pension as per provisions of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. Late Bansidhar Mohanty filed his pension papers indicating therein that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the government servant and accordingly nominated her to get family pension in the event of death of the retired government employee. He, however, succumbed to death on 18.03.2014. Consequent upon his death, the petitioner applied before the authority for grant of family pension in accordance with Rule-54 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, as amended from time to time. On consideration of the same, the authorities also granted family pension in favour of the petitioner w.e.f. 19.03.2014 @ Rs. 4,827/- vide order no. 193/3201 dated 10.03.2016. From the pension payment order issued in favour of the petitioner, it was found that some excess amount was deposited in the bank account of late Bansidhar Mohanty. From date of death of Bansidhar Mohanty, i.e. 18.03.2014 till November, 2014, when arrear family pension of the petitioner was calculated and credited, such excess amount paid was deducted from the family pension of the petitioner, which was duly acknowledged by State Bank of India by letter dated 01.11.2015. When the petitioner was enjoying the family pension, being the widow of late Bansidhar Mohanty and also being a nominee for the family pension, opposite party no. 5, claiming to be the daughter of the late husband of the petitioner and a divorcee, approached the authority by filing representation on 23.04.2015. The same was rejected, by opposite party no. 2, vide order dated 22.12.2015, and communicated by opposite party no. 3. Thereafter, by letter dated 18/30th December, 2015, the family pension was released in favour the petitioner. Challenging the same, opposite party no. 5 approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, in which the present opposite parties no. 1 to 4, were arrayed as opposite parties no. 1 to 4 and the petitioner was arrayed as opposite party no. 5. On being noticed, opposite parties no. 2 to 4 filed counter affidavit denying the claim of opposite party no. 5 herein and contended that as per records of the establishment, the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the deceased government servant and, therefore, she is entitled to get the family pension not the present opposite party no. 5, the divorced daughter of the government employee. The petitioner, who was opposite party no. 5 in the original application, also filed an independent reply denying the claim of the opposite party no. 5 herein, who also filed rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit in the original application stating inter-alia that a mutual divorce petition was filed by her and