Item No.48

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

THE HON’BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL

AND

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE PARTHA SARATHI SEN

WPCT 17 OF 2025

Union of India & Ors.

VS

Smt. B. Mallika

Appearance:-

For the Petitioner : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Gupta, Adv.

Mr. Guddu Singh, Adv.

For the Respondent : Mr. Ujjal Ray, Adv.

Heard on : 06.01.2026 Delivered on : 06.01.2026

Judgment

Per, SUJOY PAUL, ACJ.:-

1. This matter has a chequered history.

2. In this case, parties have fought a long drawn battle in the corridors of the

Court on the question of grant of family pension to a divorced daughter.

3. The crucial dates for adjudication of this matter are as under:-

i) The father of the respondent/applicant died on 20.02.1992.

ii) The mother of the respondent/applicant died on 10.06.2008.

iii) The respondent filed a matrimonial suit, being MAT 787 of 2009, which was decreed on 16.10.2010.

iv) The respondent filed a representation for grant of family pension as divorced daughter. Since representation could not fetch any result, she filed OA No.63 of 2012, which was dismissed on 6.7.2012 and the Tribunal opined that the applicant was not a family member and dependent on her parents on the given date and, accordingly, OA was held to be not maintainable and dismissed.

v) The respondent feeling aggrieved with this order of Tribunal passed in OA 63 of 2012 filed WPCT 37 of 2013, which was decided on 13.5.2015. In view of directions contained in this order of coordinate Bench, speaking order dated 3.7.2015 came to be passed thereby declining the relief of family pension.

vi) The respondent then filed OA No.620 of 2016 before the Tribunal, which was disposed of on 23.11.2017 again directing the respondents to pass a speaking order. In turn, the speaking order dated 13.01.2018 was passed, which became the subject matter of another litigation in OA No.1290 of 2018 disposed of on 21.12.2021. The railway administration then filed MA No.274 of 2022 seeking modification of the order dated 21.12.2021. The said MA was dismissed on 10.12.2024.

vii) The department has filed the present petition challenging the order of the Tribunal passed in OA No.1290 of 2018.

Contention of the Petitioner:

4. Learned counsel for the department by placing reliance on the recent judgment of this Bench passed in WPCT 320 of 2024 (Union of India & Ors. vs. Jayanti Chatterjee) submits that the present matter is squarely covered by this judgment.

5. It is submitted that the principle laid down in this judgment in Jayanti Chatterjee (supra) makes it clear that a widow daughter is entitled to get family pension provided (i) she was dependent on the deceased pensioner at the time of his/her death and (ii) the litigation for divorce was instituted during the lifetime of the deceased employee/pensioner. By taking this Court to the facts of this case, the learned counsel for the department submits that both the aforesaid conditions are not satisfied. The respondent herein was neither dependent on the deceased father/pensioner at the time of his death nor her divorce proceedings were instituted before death of the father and mother. Thus, the respondent is not entitled to get family pension.

6. Criticizing the impugned order of Tribunal dated 21.12.2021 learned counsel for department submits that the impugned order is based on Railway Board’s clarificatory circular RBE No.98 of 2008 whereas the mother circular was issued way back on 25/30th August, 2004 and 28th April, 2011. In view of these circulars, which were clarified in RBE No.109 of 2014, the respondent herein is not entitled to get family pension. The Tribunal erred in not considering the subsequent clarifications of 2014 and 2017 and mechanically granted her the benefit of RBE No.98 of 2008.

Contention of the Respondent:

7. Mr. Ray, learned counsel for the respondent submits that in the instant case the said argument will not help the Railway Administration because in the first round of litigation