ORDER

(As per Hon’ble Mr. B.V.Sudhakar, Admin. Member) Through Video Conferencing:

2. The OA is filed in regard to grant of family pension to the applicant.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the mother of the applicant while working in the respondents’ organization as JTO passed away on 30.7.2010. Applicant’s parents separated and therefore, she was living with her mother. After the death of her mother, she got married to an unemployed youth on 19.11.2010. Consequently, family pension was stopped from 18.11.2010. Aggrieved, the OA is filed.

4. The contentions of the applicant are that on the date of the death of her mother, the applicant was dependent on her mother. The family pension was stopped on 18.11.2010 without verifying as to whether there was any source of income for the family and the same is violative of Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution. Neither her husband nor she are gainfully employed. Her husband is suffering from kidney ailment. At the time of marriage, applicant was 19 years of age and was not aware of the Family Pension Rules. Moreover, the circumstances that prevailed after her mother’s death compelled her to get married. The Rule communicated vide para 8.4 of Dept. of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare (for short DOP & PW) letter dated 2.9.2008 informing that the married daughter is not eligible for family pension is an orthodox concept, since it curtails the financial freedom of women. It needs to be amended to the extent of providing family pension till the daughter is gainfully employed or is married to an earning husband.

In case of child less widow, family pension is paid even after remarriage till she starts earning independently. The Principles of Natural Justice have not been followed. The rule forces an unmarried dependent daughter of a deceased employee to either remain unmarried or marry a rich man for survival but not an unemployed person, thereby infringing personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Representation submitted on 11.5.2013 to continue pension till her husband got a job was rejected on 17.6.2013 for the reason of getting married. Several representations submitted later, met the same fate.

5. Respondents state that consequent to the death of applicant’s mother who worked for the respondents organization as JTO, an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was paid to her towards DCRG and family pension was paid upto 18.11.2010. Applicant got married on 19.11.2010 and hence family pension was stopped. Family pension is paid as per Rule 54 (6) & (14) of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 (Annexure R-2). In case of childless widow, family pension is paid even after her remarriage till she meets the income criterion to promote widow remarriage as per 6th CPC and hence, comparison made to seek the relief sought is incorrect. An unmarried daughter is paid family pension even after 25 years as per OM dated 2.9.2008 of DOP&PW. The common order of the Family Court in OS Nos. 208/2000 & 100/2003 dated 14.7.2005 does indicate that the deceased employee earned house property.

Applicant filed two rejoinders claiming that the contention of the respondents that her mother was in possession of a house property is irrelevant. The marriage certificate submitted shows that her husband is not employed. Her mother has served for 27 years and that on the date of death of her mother, she was dependent family member. No notice was issued before stopping the family pension. Claiming that Rule 54 provides for family pension as per the definition of ‘family’ is a hypothetical submission since she is the only dependent family member and there are no others to whom family pension is to be paid. If there are younger unmarried daughters, then the family pension can be paid to them. Respondents admitted that a child-less widow is paid family pension under certain conditions and denying the same benefit to a daughter who got married with no income to her or to her husband is discrimi