ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT)

1. The present petition is filed under article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the Union of India being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 31.08.2020 by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Original Application No. 255 of 2020. The main contention raised is that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is erroneous as the respondent is not entitled to get family pension in view of Rule 75 of Family Pension Scheme for Railway Servants, 1964.

2. The factual matrix is that Rekhaben who is daughter of deceased employee Gopalbhai N. Parmar, approached the railway authorities by making representation on 10.04.2018 with all required documents and requested to grant her family pension as divorced daughter of the pensioner since her father Gopalbhai N. Parmar was a railway employee. It transpires from the record that in response to the representation made by Rekhaben who is present respondent, the railway authorities asked for some more documents vide letter dated 18.05.2018 and in response to the said letter, present respondent Rekhaben submitted all the copies of necessary documents with the copy of the decree of the Court as well as the deed of customary divorce. However, the railway authorities by order dated 28.11.2019 rejected the representation made by Rekhaben – present respondent on the ground that as per the conditions stipulated in Railway Board’s Instructions i.e. RBE No.102/2017 dated

23.08.2017, she was not found eligible.

2. It is also relevant to note that as her father was railway employee who had worked as DMS/1/GS/SBE and retired on 30.06.2003 on superannuation. He died on 17.07.2003. In his order for payment of pension the name of Rekhaben – present respondent was mentioned in the details of the family members. After the death of of her father, the widow of the deceased employee i.e. mother of Rekhaben – present respondent was paid family pension. Rekhaben was residing with her mother as dependent and subsequently got married on 22.05.2005. However, due to domestic problems the husband of Rekhaben deserted her and did not call her back to her matrimonial home. Rekhaben delivered a child and since her husband had deserted her, Rekhaben and her child were compelled to stay along with her mother as her dependent. Rekhaben belongs to such a community where customary divorce has been recognized and accordingly with the intervention of the elder members of the family, the customary divorce of Rekhaben and her husband had taken place. The customary divorce was declared on Stamp Paper of Rs.100/- which was executed on 15.12.2008. Thereafter, Rekhaben and her child were staying with her mother and was dependent for financial support from her mother. The mother of Rekhaben expired on 27.06.2013.

3. After the death of her mother, Rekhaben had approached the railway authority and had requested to grant her family pension since she is divorced daughter of the pensioner. However, the railway authorities informed Rekhaben that customary divorce was not valid and asked her to obtain proper decree of divorce from the competent Court. Accordingly, Rekhaben filed for divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act being HMP No. 10 of 2005 before the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge at Dahod. The said petition of Rekhaben was allowed and the marriage with her husband – Maheshbhai Kalubhai Baria was declared as dissolved vide order dated 29.04.2016 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Dahod. Thereafter, as mentioned hereinabove, Rekhaben made representation and thereafter she approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad. The Tribunal, considered the Original Application No. 255 of 2020 filed by Rekhaben – respondent herein and has also considered the judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India V/s Mayuriben Jani D/o Durgeshbhai Nandlal Jani dated 17.02.2020 and has allowed the Original Applicati