AYESHA BEE vs AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND EDUCATION

Court
Central Administrative Tribunal

O.A./191/2024

(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad
Original Application No.191 of 2024
st
.
Day of September, 2026
This the 01
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)

Ayesha Bee aged about 51 years divorced D/o Late Shri Shamsheet Khan
R/o 64/5 Bihar Kalan, Post-Office Izzatnagar, Bareilly 2431229 (UP).
​ ​ ……….. Applicant
By Advocate: Dr. Pratibha Singh
​ ​ Versus
1. ​ Secretary, Indian Council of Agriculture Research, Krishi Bhavan,
New Delhi-110001.
2.​ The Deputy Secretary (AS), Indian Counsel of Agriculture
Research, Krishi Bhawan New Delhi 110001.
3.​ Director, ICAR- Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izzatnagar,
Bareilly (UP).
4.​ The Comptroller Finance, ICAR-Indian Veterinary Research
Institute, Izzatnagar, Bareilly (UP).
5.​ The Joint Director (Administration), ICAR- Indian Veterinary
Research Institute, Izzatnagar, Bareilly (UP).
6.​ The Chief Administrative Officer, ICAR-Indian Veterinary
Research Institute, Izzatnagar, Bareilly (UP).
7.​ The Senior Administrative Officer, ICAR- Indian Veterinary
Research Institute, Izzatnagar, Bareilly (UP).
8.​ The Assistant Administrative Officer (E.III), ICAR-Indian
Veterinary Research Institute, Izzatnagar, Bareilly (UP).
… Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava
​
ORDER
Smt. Pratibha Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri
Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents, are present and heard.
2. ​ Present Original Application has been filed seeking the following
reliefs:-
MADHU
KUMARI
Page 1 of 4

O.A./191/2024

“(i)​ To quash the impugned order dated 03.04.2023 as
annexed Annexure A- IA Compilation No 1 in the OA by which
the applicant finally deprived from her legitimate right of family
pension.
(ii)​ To issue an order or direction to the Director,
ICAR-Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Bareilly to grant
family pension to the applicant with effect from the date of his
father’s death i.e. 7 December, 2012 pursuant to her application
dated 11.04.2013 Annexure A-4 in compilation no.II in the O.A.
(ii)​ To pass any such other and/or further order which your
good-self finds fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(iii)​ To impose a heavy cost penalty upon the erroring
respondents who deprived the applicant from her legitimate
right of family pension to the applicant adopting unhuman and
discriminatory attitude.
(iv)​ Award the cost of the Original Application to the
applicant.”
3. ​ To state the facts briefly, the applicant’s father was employed on
the Establishment of Indian Veterinary Research Institute,
Izzatnagar, Bareilly and retired from service on 31.03.1995. The
father of the applicant died on 07.12.2012. The applicant’s mother
already died on 26.06.2005. After the death of her father, the
applicant made an application for family pension showing her
status as a divorced daughter. The department required the divorce
deed/affidavit of divorce verified by the Notary and registered in
the court and then also asked for the court’s judgment regarding
divorce.Thereafter, the department issued a letter dated 04.10.2016
returning the deed of divorce and affidavit for getting the same
registered in family court. The applicant again moved an
application dated 22.10.2020 enclosing certificate of heirship,
voter card, and death certificate. Thereafter letters dated
27.01.2021 and 01.03.2021 were issued by the respondents’
department asking for the direction of the Court regarding her
marriage and divorce and demanding that the applicant get her
deed of divorce registered in the court. Hence, the present O.A.
4.​ Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the
applicant is in very poor condition but the respondents have kept
her request for family pension pending since 11.04.2013 depriving
the applicant of her rightful claim by seeking unnecessary
MADHU
KUMARI
Page 2 of 4

O.A./191/2024

paperwork. It is argued that the applicant is a divorced daughter of
the deceased pensioner whose wife had already passed away
before him. Thus, the applicant, whose name finds place at serial
no.3 on the certificate of successors issued by the SDM, Bareilly,
showing her status as a divorced daughter, is eligible for grant of
family pension as per the rules.
5. ​ Submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that the
claim of the applicant for grant of family pension is objectionable
as she was not shown as family during the lifetime of the
pensioner. The talaknama submitted by her is simply a
handwritten document with thumb impressions of her and her
husband along with the names of two witnesses without
signatures. The document is neither issued by any appropriate
authority nor the same has been notarized or accepted judicially.
Accordingly, she was advised to get the same registered by the
Judiciary to process the matter further. There is no doubt about the
heirship of the applicant but without complete paper work, her
claim cannot be treated as justified.
6. ​ I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel
appearing for both the parties and perused the entire documents
record.
7. ​ Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and
keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for both
the parties, it is clear that the heirship of the applicant is not under
question. The only issue that needs to be clarified for settling her
claim for family pension is the marital status of the applicant.
Thus, the O.A. is hereby disposed of with the direction to the
competent authority amongst the respondents to make a thorough
inquiry regarding the marital status of the applicant extending the
opportunity to the applicant to adduce evidence in support of her
claim. In compliance with the aforesaid direction, the competent
authority shall fix dates of hearing informing the applicant about
the same, and, without indulging into pointless formalities, if the
applicant is substantially established as a divorced daughter of the
MADHU
KUMARI
Page 3 of 4

O.A./191/2024

deceased pensioner, her claim for family pension should be
finalised. The aforesaid exercise should be completed within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy
of this order.
8.​ All associated M.As. also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

( Justice Om Prakash VII)


​ ​ ​ Member (J)
Madhu ​​ ​
MADHU
KUMARI
Page 4 of 4