JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.

1. The writ petition assails the order dated 27.11.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal allowing OA No. 060/1165/2017 filed by Poonam-respondent no.1 wherein she had challenged the order dated 08.05.2017 passed by petitioner no.2 rejecting her claim for family pension of her late father Surinder Pal.

2. Surinder Pal father of respondent no.1 retired on 30.06.1999 and his pension was sanctioned. He expired on 10.10.2014. His daughter, respondent No.1, applied for the grant of family pension, as she is specially-abled and the only surviving legal heir dependent on Surinder Pal, following the death of her mother on 19.08.2012. The family pension was not released. The petitioners demanded a disability certificate and legal heir certificate from respondent no.1 and also income certificate from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Respondent no.1 was further advised to collect the pension paper from the office of respondent no.3 and submit the same after completing the formalities. Respondent no.1 submitted application alongwith documents in the office of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, UT Chandigarh who rejected the claim of the applicant/respondent no.1 vide order dated 06.11.2015 on the ground that the married daughter is not eligible for family pension as per Rule 6.17, Sub-rule (4), Clause V(b) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume-II.

3. The applicant/respondent no.1 preferred OA assailing the said order of 06.11.2015. Union Territory, Chandigarh filed reply withdrawing the order dated 06.11.2015 by communication dated 26.05.2016. It was submitted that the desired documents had not been submitted by the applicant for sanction of family pension and on account thereof her case has been rejected and if she submits the desired documents, her claim would be considered.

4. The CAT vide order dated 02.06.2016 directed the parent department to request the Deputy Commissioner for issuing income certificate and to consider the case of the applicant for family pension. The OA was treated as infructuous. It further directed to carry out the exercise within a period of six weeks.

5. Thereafter, a request was moved for issuance of income certificate. The Tehsildar (Revenue) issued the income certificate on 30.08.2016 of her husband which was found to be of ' 4,22,502.00 per annum considering it to be more than the prescribed minimum monthly income limit of Rs. 3,500/- plus dearness allowance, in accordance with the Punjab Civil Service Rules Volume (II), Rule 6.17 (IV), explanation (2), a letter was issued on 08.05.2017 holding the applicant not entitled to family pension.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant/respondent no.1 submits that the petitioners have relied before this Court the Punjab Civil Service Rules Volume (II), Rule 6.17 (IV), explanation (2) to contend that respondent no.1 is not entitled to family pension as she was dependent on her husband and not on her father, she cannot claim the relief as prayed for in her OA.

7. Challenge to the order dated 08.05.2017 was made by respondent no.1 and it was submitted that income certificate of the applicant was not required for release of family pension and further the income certificate was that of her husband and had been issued relying on old Punjab Civil Service Rules.

8. The CAT vide judgment dated 27.11.2018 set aside the order dated 08.05.2017 with direction to reconsider the claim of the applicant on furnishing of fresh disability certificate as it was objected that the disability certificate produced was in the name of her husband, who was 100% specially abled. The CAT also directed to amend the family pension in terms of instructions dated 28.07.2014.

9. Feeling aggrieved of the judgment dated 28.11.2018, the petitioners submit that as per Rule 6.17 (IV) Explanation (2) respondent no.1 would not fall in the eligibility zone for receiving family pension as the monthly income limit was higher than ' 3,500/- plus dearness allowance.

10. It has b