Notes of The Registry Order of The Tribunal

The present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 by the daughter of Late Shri Radharaman Agarwal, who was working with the Department of Accountant General, Gwalior and superannuated on 31.07.1990. He expired on 17.03.1994, after which his wife started receiving family pension. She also expired on 23.06.2003.

2. The daughter, the present applicant, through the present OA claims that a decree of divorce was granted by the Learned Family Court, Gwalior on 24.04.1995. As such, in view of the OM dated 26.10.2022 (Annexure A-10), a divorced daughter, being eligible for family pension in case the divorce took place during the lifetime of the Government servant or pensioner or his or her spouse, is entitled to family pension, she states that in her case, the decree of divorce was granted in 1995, i.e. during the lifetime of her mother, who was the recipient of family pension after the death of her father, hence she has claimed family pension.

3. I have heard both the learned counsels for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents available on record.

4. Though the mother of the applicant died way back in 2003, yet the applicant first time approached the respondent-department for grant of family pension only in the year 2021, i.e. almost after 18 years. The respondents considered her application and vide impugned letter dated 30.01.2023 (Annexure A-1) sought certain clarifications as well as documents regarding her income, ITRs as well as bank statement in order to proceed further. However, instead of furnishing the required information / documents sought by the respondents, the applicant rushed to this Tribunal and filed the present OA.

5. The OM dated 11.09.2013 (Annexure A-8), which the applicant has invoked in the present case, in Clause 5, thereof, clearly states that "the family pension will continue only till she remarries or starts earning her livelihood equal to or more than the sum of minimum family pension and dearness relief thereon".

6. It is, thus, clear that in order to be eligible as a divorced daughter, the claimant has to fulfill certain conditions and one of the essential condition is the financial criteria, for which the respondents have rightly sought clarifications, douments vide impugned order dated 30.01.2023 (Annexure A-1). As such, there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order, Annexure A-1.

7. The applicant in the present OA has sought family pension from the date of death of her mother, i.e. 23.06.2003. Upon examination of her case, which can only be undertaken in case she submits the requisite information and documents sought by the respondents, if the respondents arrive at the conclusion that she is eiligible for grant of family pension, even then the same cannot be granted to her from the date of death of her mother, which occurred way back on 23.06.2003 because she herself staked the claim only in the year 2021 i.e. almost 18 years after the death of her mother, which reflects delay on her part and not on the part of the respondents.

8. The purported cause of action arose to her in 2003 but approached the respondents only in 2021 i.e. almost after an inordinate delay of 18 years yet this Tribunal is thinking that her case for family pension being continuous cause of action, deserved to be considered, however, the relief is to be restricted from the date she submits the required information / documents.

9. As such, in the event, the applicant furnishes the required documents / information sought by the respondents and is found eligible, she shall be entitled to family pension from the date on which she completes the requisite formalities for grant of family pension as it is incumbent upon the respondents to first verify and examine the claim in accordance with law. However, due to non-furnishing of the required information / documents, the respondents could not consider her case. In