Diksha Choudhary vs UNION OF INDIA

:: 1 :: O.A. No. 1029/2023

-CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU (RESERVED)

Hearing through video conferencing
Original Application No. 1029/2023
Reserved on: - 09.02.2026
Pronounced on: - 19.08.2026

HON’BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)
HON’BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)


Diksha Choudhary, Age 19 years, D/o Smt. Devi Rani, R/o Patti, P.O
Karanwara, Tehsil Mahanpur, District Kathua-184202
...Applicant
(By Advocate: - Mr. Amit Gupta)

VERSUS
1. Union of India through Principal Accountant (A&E), J&K,
Shakti Nagar, Jammu-180001
2. Treasury Officer, Basholi-184201
3. Director General of Police, Gulshan Ground, Jammu-180001
4. Commandant IRP 15 Bn Gulshan Ground, Jammu-180001
5. Tehsildar Mahanpur- 184202
…Respondents.


(By Advocate: - Mr. Raghu Mehta, ld Sr. C.G.S.C, Mr. Rajesh
Thappa, AAG, Mr. Hunar Gupta, DAG, Mr. Sahil Koul)
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 2 :: O.A. No. 1029/2023

ORDER
Per: - Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member
1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section
19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following
reliefs: -
a) “Allow the instant original application;
b) Quash the order bearing No. PNRJ-4/C-3/2023-24/409-10
dated 23/05/2023 passed by respondent no. 1 by virtue of which
the claim of the applicant with respect to the family pension is
closed being illegal and void.
c) Direct the respondents to accord family pension to the
applicant on account of death of her mother namely Smt. Devi
Rani who died during the active service, being sole dependent
upon her mother.
d) Prayer for the grant of any other interim or final relief as may
be deemed appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the
case in favour of the applicant.”

Digitally signed by
HARSHIT
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 3 :: O.A. No. 1029/2023

2. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under
Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, assailing
communication/order No. PNRJ-4/C-3/2023-24/409-10 dated
23.05.2023 issued by respondent No.1, whereby her claim for grant of
family pension on account of the death of her mother, Late Smt. Devi
Rani, has been closed. The applicant further seeks a direction to the
respondents to sanction family pension in her favour.
3. The material facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy are
that the applicant is the unmarried daughter of Late Smt. Devi Rani,
th
who was serving as a Constable in IRP 15 Battalion, J&K Police and
died in harness on 17.07.2019. At the relevant time, the applicant was
a minor. Consequent upon the death of Smt. Devi Rani, the family
pension case of her husband, Sh. Narotam Singh, was processed and
family pension was sanctioned in his favour vide PPO No.
1420111199 dated 21.01.2020.
4. Subsequently, Sh. Narotam Singh remarried Smt. Veena Devi on
06.12.2021. Upon receipt of information regarding his remarriage, the
concerned authorities-initiated action for cessation of the family
pension being drawn by him. The record indicates that he drew family
pension up to 05.12.2021. The Treasury Officer, Basohli was
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 4 :: O.A. No. 1029/2023

thereafter requested to stop payment of family pension in his favour
and the matter was processed for sanction/transfer of family pension
in favour of the next eligible claimant.
5. The applicant submitted an application dated 28.09.2022 seeking
sanction/transfer of family pension in her favour on the ground that
she was the unmarried daughter and next eligible claimant of the
deceased employee. Her case was processed by the concerned Police
Department and forwarded to the Accountant General (A&E), J&K,
Jammu.
6. During processing of the claim, respondent No.1, vide communication
dated 13.02.2023, sought certain documents, including an income
certificate from the competent Revenue Authority, a certificate
regarding non-receipt of pension from any other source and a non-
marriage certificate. The requisite documents were thereafter
furnished through the concerned department.
th
7. The Commandant, IRP 15 Battalion, vide communication dated
26.04.2023, forwarded the applicant’s case to the Accountant General
along with the requisite documents, including the income certificate
dated 17.03.2023 issued by the Tehsildar, Mahanpur.
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 5 :: O.A. No. 1029/2023

8. The said income certificate reflected annual income of Rs.4,92,000/-,
equivalent to Rs.41,000/- per month. On the basis of the said
certificate, respondent No.1 closed the claim of the applicant vide the
impugned communication dated 23.05.2023. The reason assigned was
that under SRO-354 dated 06.10.2015, the income criterion for grant
of family pension was the minimum family pension of Rs.3,500/- per
month together with dearness relief thereon and, therefore, the income
reflected in the certificate exceeded the prescribed limit.
9. The applicant has questioned the aforesaid action principally on the
ground that the income certificate relied upon by the respondents does
not reflect her individual income. According to her, the amount of
Rs.4,92,000/- represents the combined/family income of the applicant
and her father. Her father, after contracting a second marriage, is
stated to be residing separately with his second wife and is not
maintaining the applicant.
10. The applicant further pleads that she has no independent source of
income; she is neither employed nor possessed of any immovable
property yielding income and does not receive any rental or interest
income. Her brother, Mohit Singh, has already been appointed as a
Constable in J&K Police under SRO-43 and is also stated to be
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 6 :: O.A. No. 1029/2023

residing separately. It is thus contended that the income of her father
could not have been mechanically attributed to her for determining her
eligibility for family pension.
11. Respondents No.3 and 4 have opposed the Original Application. They
have, however, admitted the material facts relating to the service and
death of Late Smt. Devi Rani, sanction of family pension in favour of
her husband, his subsequent remarriage and the applicant being an
unmarried daughter of the deceased employee.
12. The said respondents have stated that upon receipt of the applicant’s
application dated 28.09.2022, her claim was duly processed and
forwarded to the Accountant General (A&E), J&K, Jammu vide
communication dated 26.04.2023 along with all requisite documents.
Their stand, therefore, is that they had performed their part in
processing the claim and that the final decision regarding entitlement
to family pension was taken by respondent No.1.
13. Respondent No.1 has defended the impugned decision primarily with
reference to SRO-354 dated 06.10.2015. It is pleaded that for an
unmarried daughter to receive family pension, her income is required
to remain within the prescribed ceiling. According to respondent
No.1, the income certificate dated 17.03.2023 furnished through
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 7 :: O.A. No. 1029/2023

respondent No.4 showed annual income of Rs.4,92,000/-, working out
to Rs.41,000/- per month, which was substantially higher than the
permissible ceiling. The applicant was, therefore, held not entitled to
family pension.
14. Respondent No.1 has further stated that while calling for the requisite
documents, it had specifically required an income certificate showing
the income of the applicant from all sources. The certificate ultimately
forwarded by the concerned department was relied upon while
deciding her eligibility.
15. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties and have carefully perused the pleadings and material
available on record.
16. The controversy involved in the present O.A. lies in a narrow
compass. There is no substantial dispute regarding the status of the
applicant as an unmarried daughter of Late Smt. Devi Rani. It is also
not disputed that the deceased employee died in harness on
17.07.2019 and that family pension was initially sanctioned in favour
of her husband, Sh. Narotam Singh. It is further borne out from the
record that Sh. Narotam Singh remarried on 06.12.2021 and his
entitlement to family pension consequently ceased.
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 8 :: O.A. No. 1029/2023

17. The respondents themselves treated the applicant as the next claimant
whose eligibility was required to be examined. This is evident from
the fact that her application was processed and forwarded to the
Accountant General along with the necessary documents. The
applicant’s claim has not been rejected on the ground that an
unmarried daughter is altogether outside the category of persons
eligible for family pension. The sole material ground on which her
claim has been closed is the income criterion.
18. The question, therefore, is whether the income certificate relied upon
by respondent No.1 furnished a sufficient and unambiguous basis to
conclude that the applicant’s own income exceeded the prescribed
ceiling.
19. The record assumes significance in this regard. Respondent No.1 itself
states that, while processing the claim, it required an income
certificate showing the income of the applicant from all sources.
However, the income certificate subsequently forwarded by the
department has been described in the pleadings as reflecting annual
income of Rs.4,92,000/- in respect of the applicant, Ms. Diksha
Choudhary, and her father, Sh. Narotam Singh. The same amount was
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 9 :: O.A. No. 1029/2023

thereafter treated as the income of the applicant for the purpose of
determining her eligibility.
20. This distinction cannot be ignored. If eligibility under the applicable
provision is to be determined with reference to the income of the
claimant, there must be clear material showing the income attributable
to such claimant. A combined income figure relating to the applicant
and another family member cannot, without further examination,
necessarily be treated as the individual income of the applicant.
21. This aspect becomes more material in view of the specific case
pleaded by the applicant that her father has contracted a second
marriage, is residing separately with his second wife and is not
maintaining her. Whether these assertions ultimately entitle the
applicant to family pension is a matter for determination by the
competent authority in accordance with the applicable rules.
Nevertheless, the authority was required to ascertain the applicant’s
individual income before recording a conclusion that she crossed the
prescribed income ceiling.
22. The respondents have relied upon the income certificate issued by the
Tehsildar, Mahanpur. There is no reason to doubt the authority of the
Tehsildar to issue such certificate. The difficulty, however, is not
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 10 :: O.A. No. 1029/2023

regarding the competence of the issuing authority but regarding the
nature of the income reflected therein. The material placed before us
does not satisfactorily establish that the entire sum of Rs.4,92,000/-
per annum constituted the applicant’s personal income from all
sources.
23. Respondent No.1 has itself pleaded that the income certificate was
required to show the income of the applicant from all sources. Once
the certificate relied upon contained a combined/family income figure,
the proper course was to seek clarification or a certificate separately
specifying the applicant’s individual income rather than treating the
entire combined amount as her income and closing her claim.
24. At the same time, we are not persuaded to issue a positive direction
straightaway sanctioning family pension to the applicant. Family
pension is governed by the applicable statutory rules and the claimant
has to satisfy all the eligibility requirements prescribed thereunder,
including the applicable income criterion. The material presently
available before the Tribunal does not contain an unambiguous
determination of the applicant’s individual income. Such factual
determination appropriately falls within the domain of the competent
authorities.
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 11 :: O.A. No. 1029/2023

25. Thus, while the impugned decision cannot be sustained on the basis
on which it has been passed, it would equally be inappropriate for this
Tribunal to substitute itself for the competent authority and declare the
applicant entitled to family pension without verification of the
relevant eligibility conditions.
26. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that
the ends of justice would be adequately met by setting aside the
impugned communication and directing the respondents to reconsider
the claim of the applicant after obtaining a fresh and specific income
certificate reflecting her individual income from all sources.
27. Accordingly, the Original Application is partly allowed. The
impugned communication/order No. PNRJ-4/C-3/2023-24/409-10
dated 23.05.2023, insofar as it closes/rejects the applicant’s claim for
family pension on the basis of the income certificate presently on
record, is hereby set aside.
28. The competent respondents are directed to permit the applicant to
furnish, or themselves obtain from the competent Revenue Authority,
a fresh income certificate specifically indicating the individual income
of the applicant from all sources, without mechanically attributing to
her the income of her father merely on account of their relationship.
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV

:: 12 :: O.A. No. 1029/2023

The competent authority shall thereafter reconsider the applicant’s
claim for family pension strictly in accordance with the applicable
rules, including SRO-354 dated 06.10.2015, and pass a reasoned and
speaking order.
29. It is made clear that this Tribunal has not expressed any final opinion
regarding the applicant’s ultimate entitlement to family pension. If,
upon verification, the applicant is found to satisfy the prescribed
income criterion and all other eligibility conditions under the
applicable rules, the respondents shall extend to her the consequential
benefits admissible in accordance with law.
30. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of 03
months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
31. The O.A. stands disposed of in the above terms. Pending M.A(s), if
any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.


(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
/harshit /

Digitally signed by
HARSHIT
HARSHIT YADAV
YADAV