NEETA ARORA vs DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING

1
(Reserved on 07.10.2026)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
JABALPUR BENCH

(Circuit Bench Indore through Hybrid mode)
RAJUL
NAMDEO

th
Jabalpur, this the 16 day of October, 2026
RAJUL NAMDEO
2026.10.22
12:33:16+05'30'
HON’BLE SHRI RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Original Application No. 1123 of 2023

Neeta Arora, D/o Late Shri Jagdish Chandra Arora, Age: 52 years,
Occupation: Unemployed, R/o B-6, House No. 209, Scheme No. 114,
Part-2, Dewas Naka, INDORE -452010 (MP)
-Applicant

Advocate for the applicant: Shri L.C.Patne

V e r s u s

[1] Union of India, Through the Secretary to the Government of India,
Ministry of Personal, Public Grievance & Pensions, Department of
Pension & Pensioner's Welfare, 3rd Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan
Market, NEW DELHI-110003

[2] The Regional Pay and Accounts Office, Survey of India and
NATMO, 15, Wood Street, KOLKATA - 700016 (WB).

[3] The Director, Madhya Pradesh Geo-Spatial Center, Survey
Colony, Vijay Nagar, Data JABALPUR-482002 (MP) -Respondents

Advocate for the respondents: Ms. Seema Sharma



Page 1 of 11

2
O R D E R
The present original application has been directed against the
order dated 16.01.2023 (Annexure A-14) whereby the case of the
RAJUL
NAMDEO
applicant for family pension has been rejected in the light of O.M.
RAJUL NAMDEO
2026.10.22
12:33:16+05'30'
dated 26.10.2022 (Annexure A-13).
2. The facts of the case in brief is that the applicant is the
daughter of the deceased Govt. employee. The father of the applicant
has expired on 24.12.2019 (Annexure A/2). The applicant's father
was a pensioner in the respondent department. He remained in
receipt of his pension till his death and the applicant was the
dependent upon pension of her deceased father and was living with
her all alone without earning any livelihood. The applicant is a
deserted lady who was deserted by her husband Mr. Ashok Arora
way back in the year 2004. The applicant submits that vide order
dated 12.10.2021 (Annexure A/12), the learned Family Court in HMA
Case No. 411/2020 filed on 2.3.2020, the applicant was succeeded in
getting the decree of divorce from her husband. Upon death of her
deceased father, the applicant applied for grant of family pension but
to the utter surprise of the applicant on the basis of impugned O.M.
dated 26.10.2022 (Annexure A/13) issued by Respondent No. 1, the
Page 2 of 11

3
Respondent No. 2 by issuing the impugned order dated 16.01.2023
(Annexure A/14), rejected the claim for grant of family pension to the
applicant on the ground that the proceeding for divorce was instituted
RAJUL
NAMDEO
by the applicant on 02.03.2020 i.e. after the death of her deceased
RAJUL NAMDEO
2026.10.22
12:33:16+05'30'
father. The aforesaid impugned order came to be communicated to
the applicant by the Respondent No. 4 by letter dated 08.02.2023
(Annexure A/15). Hence this O.A.
3. Upon notice, the respondents have filed their reply wherein it is
submitted that the applicant is the daughter of Late Sh. Jagdish
Chandra Arora, formerly Record Keeper, Grade-II retired from Survey
of India w.e.f. 31.07.2000 and expired on 24.12.2019. The applicant
has applied for family pension upon death of her deceased father on
the ground that she is a divorced daughter. She applied for family
pension through her sister Smt. Sarita Arora on 25.06.2022(Annexure
R/5). She was asked vide letter dated 20.07.2022 (Annexure R/6) to
submit the necessary documents required for settlement of her
application for Family Pension. The case of the applicant for family
pension was prepared and initiated vide letter dated 05.01.2023
(Annexure R/9). Her case for grant of family pension was rejected
vide letter dated 16.01.2023 (Annexure R/1) on the ground that as
Page 3 of 11

4
per the Department of P&PW, Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions
OM No.1(1)/2022-P&PW(E) dated 26.10.2022 (Annexure R/2), the
applicant's divorce took place after the death of her deceased father
RAJUL
NAMDEO
and that the proceedings for divorce were instituted by her after death
RAJUL NAMDEO
2026.10.22
12:33:16+05'30'
of her father and it is communicated to the applicant vide letter
No.1174/3-A-29 dated 08.02.2023 (Annexure R/3).
4. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the pleadings on record. I have also considered the rival
submissions.
5. The issue which arises for consideration is whether the claim of
the applicant for family pension can be rejected solely on the ground
that the proceedings for divorce were instituted after the death of her
father, notwithstanding her assertion that she had been deserted by
her husband since 2004 and was financially dependent upon her
deceased father.
5.1 There is no dispute that the applicant’s father was a pensioner
of the respondent department and that he expired on 24.12.2019. It is
also borne out from the material referred to by the applicant that the
matrimonial proceedings culminated in a decree of divorce dated
12.10.2021. The applicant has specifically pleaded that her
Page 4 of 11

5
separation from her husband was not a consequence of any recent
matrimonial dispute but had continued for a considerable period prior
to the demise of her father.
RAJUL
NAMDEO
5.2 I take note of the Office Memorandum dated 19.07.2017 of
RAJUL NAMDEO
2026.10.22
12:33:16+05'30'
Ministry of Personnel, P.G. & Pensions, Department of Pension &
Pensioners' Welfare which clarifies that a divorced daughter is eligible
for family pension under Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972,
even where the decree of divorce was granted after the death of her
parents, provided that the divorce proceedings had been instituted
before the competent court during the lifetime of at least one of her
parents and she fulfils all other prescribed eligibility conditions. In
such cases, family pension shall be payable from the date of divorce.
The relevant para of which reads thus:-
“5. This department has been receiving grievances from
various quarters that the divorce proceedings are a long drawn
procedure which take many years before attaining finality.
There are many cases in which the divorce proceedings of a
daughter of a Government employee/pensioner had been
instituted in the competent court during the life time of one or
both of them but none of them was alive by the time the
decree of divorce was granted by the competent authority.

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
Page 5 of 11

6
or his/her spouse but divorce took place after their death-
provide 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.”

5.3 The eligibility of a divorced daughter must, therefore, be
RAJUL
NAMDEO
RAJUL NAMDEO
2026.10.22
12:33:16+05'30'
examined in the light of the applicable pension rules, the relevant
Office Memoranda and the material establishing dependency and
other prescribed conditions. At the same time, the claim deserves
consideration on the basis of the applicant’s actual circumstances
and the relevant material on record, rather than by reference to an
isolated fact without examining the applicable provisions in their
entirety.
6. In the present case, the applicant has stated that she had been
deserted by her husband since 2004 and that she remained
dependent upon her deceased father for her livelihood. These
assertions are material to the consideration of her claim. The fact that
the decree of divorce was passed subsequently does not, by itself,
establish that the applicant was financially independent or that her
claim was otherwise devoid of merit. The respondents were required
to examine the claim in accordance with the applicable rules and the
relevant facts bearing upon the applicant’s eligibility.
Page 6 of 11

7
7. In the circumstances of the present case, the applicant’s plea of
long-standing desertion, her alleged dependency upon her deceased
father and the subsequent decree of divorce require consideration in
RAJUL
NAMDEO
the proper perspective under the governing pension provisions. The
RAJUL NAMDEO
2026.10.22
12:33:16+05'30'
claim cannot be adjudicated merely by making a general observation
about the date of institution of the proceedings without examining the
precise requirements of the applicable rule and the material relevant
to their fulfilment.
8. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of
Tripura, Agartala, in the case of Smt. Ujjwala Rani vs. Agartala
Municipal Corporation & Ors. in W.A. No. 37/2026 has dealt with
the same issue, the findings of the said judgments reads thus:-
“26) Neither Rule 8 quoted above nor the amendment to the CCS
(Pension) Rules, 1972 states explicitly that to claim the benefit of
Family Pension, the daughter of the pensioner should be a divorcee
at the time of his death.
27) When such a requirement is not provided in the applicable rule, in
our opinion, the learned Single Judge erred in reading such a
requirement into Rule 8. He erred in holding that the condition
precedent for entitlement of Family Pension is that the daughter
should be a divorced daughter when the original pensioner died
because the right to receive such pension accrues on the death of the
original pensioner or on the death of his or her spouse, who was
receiving pension.
28) In fact, the issued an office Government of India had
memorandum on 19.07.2017 which contained in Clause (6) thereof
as under:
Page 7 of 11

8
"the Government of India had decided to grant Family Pension to the
divorced daughter even in cases where the divorce proceedings had
been filed in a competent Court during the lifetime of the
pensioner/employee or his oror her spouse, but divorce took place
after the death provided that the claimant fulfills all other conditions
for grant of Family Pension under Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension)
Rules, 1972 and that in such cases Family Pension will commence
from the date of the divorce."
29) "the Government of India had decided to grant Family Pension to
the divorced daughter even in cases where the divorce proceedings
had been filed in a competent Court during the lifetime of the
pensioner/employee or his oror her spouse, but divorce took place
after the death provided that the claimant fulfills all other conditions
for grant of Family Pension under Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension)
Rules, 1972 and that in such cases Family Pension will commence
from the date of the divorce." This shows that the Government of
India has itself accepted the entitlement of a divorced daughter to get
Family pension even if the divorce had not happened on the date of
death of the pensioner father. The said interpretation of Rule 54 of
the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 would bind the Agartala Municipal
Corporation by virtue of notification in January, 1992 by it referred to
in para 18 above.
30) This office memorandum has been quoted by the Division Bench
of the Calcutta High Court in Union of India and others v. Mita Saha
Karmakar in WP.CT No.36 of 2025 dt.09.12.2025.
The Calcutta High Court concluded in that case that the respondent
had established her claim for Family Pension under the said Office
Memorandum issued by the Government of India since in that case,
the husband of the respondent had filed for dissolution of the
marriage during the lifetime of her father and the marriage was
dissolved by a decree of divorce, after his death on 19.04.2013, on
01.09.2016. It was also held that the object of granting Family
Pension under the memo dt.19.07.2017 was to give pecuniary
support to a dependent family member of the deceased and if this
requirement is fulfilled, she would be entitled to Family Pension.
31) The Orissa High Court also has taken a similar view in
Biswamitra Dhal v. State of Odisha and others?.
The Orissa High Court held that the Family Pension scheme is a
welfare legislation enacted with the objective for providing financial
security to the dependent family members of a retired Government
RAJUL
NAMDEO
RAJUL NAMDEO
2026.10.22
12:33:16+05'30'
Page 8 of 11

9
employee/pensioner, and in a situation where the petitioner therein
did not incur any of the disqualifications contemplated under the
applicable rules and had also obtained a valid decree of divorce, the
benefit cannot be denied. It held that a rigid and technical
interpretation of the rules denying Family Pension to immediate family
members of the deceased pensioner who are dependent on him or
her during his or her lifetime would not be proper and would defeat
the very object sought to be achieved by the scheme or statute. In
that case also, the decree of divorce was obtained after the demise of
her father, who was the retired Government employee/pensioner and
it was noted that she had been ousted from her matrimonial home
and was residing with her parents for a long time prior to the death of
her father.
32) Though the counsel for the Agartala Municipal Corporation
sought to contend that the recital in the divorce petition about the
appellant's husband deserting her immediately after the marriage,
cannot be taken as a face value and has to be doubted, we see no
reason to doubt the same. It is difficult to believe that women in India,
for the sake of paltry Family Pension would go to the extent of making
false pleas in their divorce application and would break up their
marriage. Also her husband has also agreed to her plea and had not
disputed the same. It is unfortunate that such an unfair stand has
been taken by the Agartala Municipal Corporation.
33) In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the learned
Single Judge erred in not granting relief to the appellant on the
ground that she was not a divorcee on the date of the death of her
father.
34) Though the learned Single Judge has noticed the judgment of the
Calcutta High Court referred to by us, the learned Single Judge took
a different view ignoring the fact that in that case, the Calcutta High
Court specifically noticed the Office Memorandum dt.19.07.2017
which permitted a divorced daughter to get Family Pension even
when the petition for divorce was filed by her prior to the death of her
father, who was the original pensioner, though divorce was granted
subsequently.
35) The said Office memorandum, therefore, itself indicates that the
daughter need not be a divorcee on the date of the death of her
father/ pensioner to be eligible to get Family Pension.
36) The learned Single Judge has taken a hyper technical view in the
matter on the ground that she was only dependent on her father at
RAJUL
NAMDEO
RAJUL NAMDEO
2026.10.22
12:33:16+05'30'
Page 9 of 11

10
the time of his death, but she was still a married daughter though
separated from her husband and not a divorced daughter.
37) Therefore, the Writ Appeal is allowed; the judgment dt.01.04.2026
of the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.132 of 2025 is set aside and
the said Writ Petition is allowed, and the respondents-Agartala
Municipal Corporation is directed to pay Family Pension to the
appellant from the date she secured the divorce decree, i.e. with
effect from 04.10.2021 and continue to pay the same during her
lifetime. The arrears of Family Pension shall be paid to the appellant
within 3(three) months from today with interest @6% per annum on
the date they fell due till the date of actual payment.
38) The Writ Appeal is disposed of in view of above terms.
39) Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.”

RAJUL
NAMDEO
RAJUL NAMDEO
2026.10.22
12:33:16+05'30'
9. Therefore, in view of the settled legal positions, the impugned
order dated 16.01.2023, communicated vide letter dated 08.02.2023,
cannot be sustained if the applicant’s claim has been rejected without
a proper examination of the relevant facts and the applicable
provisions governing family pension. The matter warrants
reconsideration by the competent authority in accordance with law.
10. Accordingly, the Original Application is allowed. The impugned
order dated 16.01.2023, communicated vide letter dated 08.02.2023,
is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to re-consider the
case of the applicant for family pension from the date she secured the
divorce decree, i.e. with effect from 12.10.2021 and continue to pay
the same during her lifetime.
Page 10 of 11

11
10.1 The competent authority shall pass a reasoned and speaking
order within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
RAJUL
NAMDEO
11. Pending M.As, if any, stands disposed of.
RAJUL NAMDEO
2026.10.22
12:33:16+05'30'

(Rajinder Singh Dogra)
Judicial Member

Rajul
Page 11 of 11