A divorced daughter is entitled to family pension if she was dependent on her deceased parent, even if the divorce occurred after the parent's death.

ORDER

By way of the present OA filed under Section – 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985 the applicant prays for the following reliefs:-

“8.1 That this hon'ble Tribunal may be graciously pleased to allow this application and quash the Impugned order No. 2009/C&P/Adm/Pre- 2006/Ministerial Staff, dt. 10-5-2018 passed by Dy Chief Accounts Officer (Cash and Payments Department), Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi (Annexure A-I) and direct the respondents to reconsider the case of the applicant strictly in accordance with rules as well as judgment of the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court and pass orders directing the respondents to grant family pension to the applicant with all consequential benefits.

8.2 That the Hon'ble Tribunal may further graciously be pleased to pass any other or further order as may be deemed fit and circumstances of the case.

8.3 That the Hon'ble Tribunal may be graciously pleased to grant costs against the respondents and in favour of the applicant.”

2. The brief facts of the case as narrated by the learned counsel for the applicant are as under :-

2.1 The applicant is a divorcee daughter of Late Mr. Puran Chand Khanna, who retired as a Head Clerk from DRM's office, Moradabad in the year 1977.

2.2 Learned counsel for the applicant stated that in the year, 2002, the applicant came back after marriage to her parents house and was living with her father. After serious differences with her husband in year 2009, the applicant filed a Suit for divorce bearing No. 406/2009 during the lifetime of father who was a Government servant. The father of the applicant expired on 22.11.2009. The said Suit was dismissed on 12.05.2010 by an ex-parte judgment.

2.3. Thereafter, on 23.05.2011, the applicant again filed another Suit bearing No. 664/2011 in which the applicant prayed for divorce decree and the said Suit was allowed by the ex-parte judgment dated 23.05.2012.

2.4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on 25.06.2012, the applicant submitted a representation for grant of family pension which was not decided for a long time and, therefore, on 05.02.2016, the applicant submitted another representation in which she stated that her case for family pension is covered by the DOPT OM dated 11.09.2013, which was circulated by the Railway Board and she was dependent on her late father after she developed differences with her husband and she was not getting any help from her husband. However, the said representation was rejected.

2.5. Learned counsel for the applicant stated that on 28.07.2017, the applicant preferred another representation to the respondents, however, the said representation was also rejected on 10.05.2018 by the Dy. Chief Accounts Officer, Northern Railway, New Delhi stating that the divorce was granted on 23.05.2012, therefore, Circular dated 11.10.2013 as well as Circular dated 23.08.2017 were not applicable to the facts of the case.

2.6. Placing reliance upon the judgment of Nagpur Bench of Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in W.P. No. 6884/2016 tilted Union of India & Anr. Vs. Usha Eknath Patil, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the said judgment, while quoting from the relevant instructions governing the subject, has held that in case the fact of customary divorce is not in dispute and even though the marriage may not have been legally dissolved, the concerned person would be entitled to the benefit of family pension if an appropriate court has established and recognized customary divorce and separate stay of such a woman from her husband. Learned counsel for the applicant further added that in the instant case too, the applicant had been residing with her father on sep