SMT IMRANA KHATOON vs POST UP CIRCLE

1

(Reserved on 20.08.2026)

Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench,
Allahabad

th
This the _27 day of _October, 2026


Hon’ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (J)



Original Application No. 1145 of 2023

Smt. Imrana Khatoon a/a 33 years D/o Late Istiyak Ali R/o 43-A,
Sahkari Naggar, District Ghaziabad.
……….. Applicant.

By Advocate: Mr. Ram Krishna Koli.


Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Communication
Department of Post Govt. of India, New Delhi.
2. General Manager (Finance), PAO UP Circle Sector-D
Aliganj, Lucknow.
3. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Ghaziabad Division,
Ghaziabad.
4. Senior Account Officer (Pension) O/O D.A. (P) Sector-2,
Aliganj, Lucknow.
……….. Respondents.


By Advocates: Mr. Manoj Kumar Sharma.

Order
The applicant has approached this Tribunal under
Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking
grant of family pension after the death of her mother, Smt.
Hamsiran, who died on 11.04.2010. The reliefs sought by the
applicant are as follows:-
“i) The Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be
pleased to set-aside the order dated
11.8.2016 Passed by respondent no.4 order
dated 1.10.2010 Passed by respondent no.3
as well as order dated 25.6.2021 passed by
Shakuntala Singh

2

Respondent no. 2 (which was served upon
the applicant on 2.12.2022 on demanding
information under Right to Information Act,
2005) rejecting the claim of family pension to
the applicant filed as (Annexure No. 6, 19 &
22) to the Original Application.

ii) to pass any other and further order as this
Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in
the facts and circumstances of the case.

iii) to award cost of the application.”
2. The brief facts of the case, as pleaded by the applicant,
are that her father, Shri Istiyak Ali, was employed as a Group-
D employee in the respondent department and retired from
service on 31.01.2002. After his death on 06.04.2006, family
pension was sanctioned in favour of his wife, Smt. Hamsiran.
She also died on 11.04.2010, whereupon the family pension
was discontinued. The applicant claims family pension as the
divorced daughter of the deceased pensioner.
3. The applicant has pleaded that her marriage was
solemnized with Shri Abid Ali, son of Shri Tahir Ali, on
10.06.1998, and two daughters were born out of the wedlock.
She alleges that, owing to harassment and demands for
dowry, she was compelled to leave her matrimonial home
along with her daughters and started residing with her
parents. According to her, the marriage was dissolved on
07.01.2007 by oral divorce in accordance with Muslim
customs.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that she
was residing with her parents during their lifetime. After the
death of her mother on 11.04.2010, she approached the
respondent department for grant of family pension and was
advised to obtain a divorce decree from a competent court.
Accordingly, she filed Case No. 166 of 2013, Smt. Imrana
Shakuntala Singh

3

Khatoon v. Abid Ali , before the Family Court, Ghaziabad, and
an ex parte decree of divorce was passed on 20.07.2015.
Learned counsel further submitted that a divorce certificate
dated 10.09.2017 was issued by the Shahi Imam, Shahi Masjid
Fatehpuri, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, stating that the divorce
under Muslim customs had taken effect on 07.01.2007. The
said certificate has been filed as Annexure No. 9 to the
Original Application. It was, therefore, contended that the
applicant had been dependent on her parents since the
divorce and was entitled to family pension. However, her
claim was rejected by the respondents vide the impugned
orders. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the
Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal in Ms. Najmaben Umarbhai
Kureshi v. The Secretary to the Government of India and Others .
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, in their
counter affidavit, submitted that Shri Istiyak Ali retired from
the Department of Posts on 31.01.2002 and was issued PPO
No. LKO (P) 32923. After his death on 06.04.2006, family
pension was sanctioned in favour of his wife, Smt. Hamsiran,
vide PPO No. LKO (P) 20680/S. Following her death on
11.04.2010, the family pension was discontinued as no
eligible dependent family member was found entitled to
receive it. The respondents further submitted that the
applicant instituted divorce proceedings on 02.04.2013 in
Case No. 166 of 2013, which were decided on 20.07.2015.
Therefore, her claim that the divorce had taken place on
07.01.2007 under Muslim customs could not be accepted for
the purpose of granting family pension. Learned counsel
relied upon the Office Memorandum dated 19.07.2017, issued
by the Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare, and
Shakuntala Singh

4

contended that the applicant's case did not fall within the
conditions specified therein or under Rule 54 of the CCS
(Pension) Rules, 1972.
6. I have considered the submissions made by Mr. Ram
Krishna Koli, learned counsel for the applicant, and Mr. Manoj
Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents, and
have carefully examined the pleadings, documents and other
material available on record.
7. The admitted facts are that the applicant's father, Shri
Istiyak Ali, retired from service on 31.01.2002 and died on
06.04.2006. Thereafter, family pension was sanctioned in
favour of his wife, Smt. Hamsiran, who died on 11.04.2010.
The applicant claims entitlement to family pension on the
ground that her marriage had already been dissolved on
07.01.2007 under Muslim customs and that she was
dependent on her parents. However, the record shows that
she instituted divorce proceedings before the Family Court,
Ghaziabad, on 02.04.2013, and an ex parte decree of divorce
was passed on 20.07.2015. The divorce certificate issued by
the Shahi Imam, Shahi Masjid Fatehpuri, Chandni Chowk,
Delhi, is dated 10.09.2017 and mentions 07.01.2007 as the
date of divorce. Thus, both the decree of divorce and the said
certificate were issued after the death of the applicant's
parents. The question is whether, in these circumstances, the
applicant fulfils the conditions prescribed for grant of family
pension under the applicable rules and instructions.
8. The record does not indicate that the mother of the
applicant had submitted any application to the respondent
department during the period from 2007 to 2010 regarding
Shakuntala Singh

5

the applicant’s claim for family pension on the basis of her
alleged divorce. Moreover, the applicant herself did not
submit any application for family pension after the death of
her mother on 11.04.2010. Her claim appears to have been
considered by the department for the first time in the year
2016, after the divorce decree was passed on 20.07.2015. The
subsequent divorce certificate dated 10.09.2017 also records
the alleged date of divorce as 07.01.2007. The relevant
instructions governing such claims are contained in the Office
Memorandum dated 19.07.2017 issued by the Department of
Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare. Paragraph 6 thereof is
reproduced below:-
“6. The matter has been examined in this department in
consultation with Department of Expenditure and it has
been decided to grant family pension to a divorced
daughter in such cases where the divorce proceedings
had been filed in a competent court during the life-time of
the employee/pensioner or his/her spouse but divorce
took place after their death-provided the claimant fulfils
all other conditions for grant of family pension under rule
54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. In such cases, the
family pension will commence from the date of divorce.”
9. A perusal of the aforesaid Office Memorandum dated
19.07.2017 shows that family pension may be granted to a
divorced daughter where divorce proceedings were
instituted before a competent court during the lifetime of the
employee/pensioner or his/her spouse, but the divorce took
place after their death, subject to fulfilment of the other
conditions prescribed under Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension)
Rules, 1972. In the present case, the applicant claims that her
divorce had taken place on 07.01.2007 under Muslim
customs. However, the proceedings before the Family Court,
Ghaziabad, were instituted on 02.04.2013, after the death of
both her parents, and the decree of divorce was passed on
20.07.2015. The divorce certificate issued by the Shahi Imam
Shakuntala Singh

6

on 10.09.2017 also records the alleged date of divorce as
07.01.2007. In view of these facts and the conditions stipulated
in the aforesaid Office Memorandum, the applicant’s claim
does not fall within the category of cases covered by the said
clarification. Accordingly, I find no sufficient ground to
interfere with the impugned orders. The Original Application
is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
10. All pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, stand
disposed of.

( Rajnish Kumar Rai )
Member (J)


/Shakuntala/
Shakuntala Singh