SMT JAI KUMARI RAI vs NORTH CENTRAL RAILWAY

RESERVED ON 13.10.2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD
th
Dated: This the 15 of OCTOBER 2026
PRESENT:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Original Application No. 330/00888/2025

Smt. Jai Kumari Rai D/o Late Mulu Rai aged about 50 years, R/o Azad
Nagar Rai Colony Bhatagaon Jhansi, District Jhansi.

. . . Applicant
By Adv: Shri S.M Ali
V E R S U S

1. Union of India through General Manager, Head Quarter, North
Central Railway, Subedarganj, Prayagraj.

2. Chief Personnel Officer, Head Quarter North Central Railway,
Subedarganj, Prayagraj.

3. Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway, Jhansi.

4. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer North Central Railway, Jhansi
(DRM-P).
.Respondents
By Adv: Shri Anil Kumar/Shri Bashist Tiwari
O R D E R
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
The present O.A has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of
the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-
“(i) To issue order or direction to the quash the impugned order dated 12.06.2025
(A-1).
(ii) To issue order or direction to the respondents to grant family pension in
favour of the applicant under Rules 1993 with all consequential benefits.

2

(iii) To issue order or direction to the respondents to pay arrears of family pension
w.e.f. 19.5.2021 along with 6% interest per annum from the due date of till actual
payment date in favour of the applicant.
(iv) Award the cost in favour of the applicant”.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant’s father was a retired
Railway employee and was drawing pension. He died on 28.09.2010. The
applicant was married to Shri Sunil Rai on 23.06.1999. However, her
husband was not maintaining her and had been missing since 2011. The
applicant, therefore, filed Case No. 28 of 2017 (828 of 2016) under Section
10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking judicial separation after her
husband had remained missing for several years and it was decreed ex-
parte. The applicant’s mother, Smt. Bhagwati Devi, was receiving family
pension after the death of her husband. She died on 18.05.2021. Applicant’s
husband was traced later on but he also died on 19.7.2022. Thereafter, the
applicant submitted representations dated 07.06.2021 and 28.07.2021 to the
respondents, claiming family pension under Rule 75(6)(iii) of the Railway
Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. However, respondent No. 4, vide the
impugned order dated 12.06.2025, rejected her claim. Being aggrieved by
the said order, the applicant has filed the present Original Application.
3. Per contra, the respondents, in their counter affidavit, submitted that
the applicant is claiming family pension as a divorced daughter of late Shri
Ram Kishan, who retired from Railway service on medical grounds on
10.05.1993 and died on 28.09.2010. After his death, his wife, Smt.
Bhagwati Devi was receiving family pension. The applicant claimed family
pension on the ground that she was a divorced daughter. However, the
MANISH KUMAR
order dated 19.12.2018 passed by the Family Court shows that she was
SRIVASTAVA
granted judicial separation under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955, and not a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the said Act.
Therefore, she cannot be treated as a divorced daughter on the basis of the
said order. Accordingly, her claim was rejected vide letter dated
16.06.2022. The respondents further submitted that the applicant
subsequently claimed family pension as a widowed daughter. Her claim
was examined in the light of the Railway Board’s policy guidelines dated
26.09.2013, issued vide RBE No. 99/2013. Upon examination, she was

3

found ineligible for family pension and the decision was communicated to
her vide letters dated 06.11.2023 and 12.06.2025. The respondents,
therefore, submitted that the applicant does not fulfill the prescribed
eligibility conditions and is not entitled to family pension. They prayed that
the Original Application be dismissed.
4. The applicant has also filed a rejoinder affidavit, reiterating the facts
stated in the Original Application and denying the averments made in the
counter affidavit. No new facts have been brought on record in the rejoinder
affidavit.
5. I have heard Shri S.M. Ali, learned counsel for the applicant, and
Shri Anil Kumar as well as Shri Bashist Tiwari, learned counsel for the
respondents, and have perused the record.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is the
daughter of late Shri Ram Kishan, a retired Railway employee and has been
dependent upon her parents for her livelihood since 2011, when her
husband went missing. After the death of her father, her mother Smt.
Bhagwati Devi was receiving family pension until her death on 18.05.2021.
It was further submitted that as her husband had been missing since 2011,
the applicant approached the Family Court, Jhansi, and obtained an order of
judicial separation under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on
19.12.2018. Learned counsel for the applicant further contended that the
applicant could not obtain a decree of divorce in the absence of her husband
and, therefore, she had to seek judicial separation from the competent court.
It was further submitted that her husband was traced in 2022 and died on
MANISH KUMAR
19.07.2022. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that she is
SRIVASTAVA
not claiming family pension under Rule 70 of the Railway Services
(Pension) Rules, 1993, but under Rule 75(6)(iii) of the said Rules, as a
dependent daughter. According to him, the respondents wrongly rejected
her claim by relying upon Rule 70 without properly considering her
eligibility under Rule 75 of said Rules. It was also contended that the
applicant had no independent source of income and remained dependent
upon her mother until her death on 18.05.2021. Therefore, she is entitled to
family pension from the date of her mother’s death. Learned counsel for the

4

applicant lastly submitted that the impugned order dated 12.06.2025 is not a
reasoned order and deserves to be set aside. He, therefore, prayed that the
Original Application be allowed and the respondents be directed to grant
family pension to the applicant in accordance with the applicable rules,
along with consequential benefits.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted
that the applicant is claiming family pension as a dependent daughter of late
Shri Ram Kishan, a retired Railway employee who died on 28.09.2010.
After his death mother of the applicant received family pension until her
death on 18.05.2021. It was further submitted that the applicant was
married to Shri Sunil Rai on 23.06.1999. The order dated 19.12.2018
passed by the Family Court, Jhansi, granted judicial separation under
Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and not divorce. Therefore,
the applicant cannot claim the status of a divorced daughter on the basis of
the said order. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that
the applicant’s claim was examined under the applicable provisions of the
Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, and the Railway Board’s policy
guidelines dated 26.09.2013, issued vide RBE No. 99/2013. Upon
examination, she was found ineligible for family pension, and the decision
was communicated to her through the relevant office letters, including the
impugned order dated 12.06.2025. She must fulfill the eligibility conditions
prescribed under the applicable rules but she was not fulfilling the same.
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents have
rightly rejected her claim and that no illegality has been committed by
them. He, therefore, prayed that the Original Application, being devoid of
merit, be dismissed. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
respondents relied upon the judgment dated 23.02.2026 passed by this
Tribunal in Naresh Kumar v. Union of India and Others , OA No.
516/2012 .
8. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for both parties
and perused the record.
9. The main question for consideration is whether the applicant is
entitled to family pension as a widowed or divorced daughter of late Shri

5

Ram Kishan under Rule 75(6)(iii) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules,
1993. Another question is whether the impugned order dated 12.06.2025
has been passed by giving proper reasons.
10. It is not disputed that the applicant's father died on 28.09.2010 and
her mother, who was receiving family pension, died on 18.05.2021. The
applicant was married to Shri Sunil Rai on 23.06.1999. Her husband went
missing in 2011. The Family Court, Jhansi, passed an order dated
19.12.2018 granting judicial separation under Section 10 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955. Her husband was traced in 2022 and died on
19.07.2022.
11. The order of judicial separation passed under Section 10 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955, permits the parties to live separately but does not
dissolve their marriage. On the other hand, a decree of divorce under
Section 13 of the said Act dissolves the marriage. Therefore, the order
dated 19.12.2018, being an order of judicial separation, cannot be treated as
a decree of divorce. Accordingly, the applicant cannot be treated as a

divorced daughter on the basis of the said order.
12. The next question is whether the applicant became eligible for family
pension as a widowed daughter after the death of her husband on
19.07.2022.
13. In the present case, the applicant's mother died on 18.05.2021,
whereas her husband died on 19.07.2022. Thus, the applicant became a
widow after the death of her mother. Further, the order of judicial
separation passed in 2018 did not dissolve her marriage. Therefore, on the
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
relevant date, the applicant was neither a divorced daughter nor a widowed
daughter.
14. The applicant has submitted that her husband had been missing since
2011 and that she was dependent upon her parents for her livelihood. These
facts may show that she was living separately from her husband and was
dependent upon her parents. However, family pension can be granted only
in accordance with the applicable rules and policy guidelines.

6

15. In Naresh Kumar (supra), this Tribunal has dealt with another issue
which was relating to the claim of an adopted child for family pension. The
facts and issue involved in that case are different from those of the present
case. Therefore, the said judgment does not help any assistance to resolve
the issue involved in the present matter.
16. Similar issue as is involved in the present matter came up for
consideration before this Bench in Smt. Rukaiya Khatoon filed O.A. No.
806 of 2019 before this Tribunal seeking family pension as a widowed
daughter. The said Original Application was dismissed by order dated
21.07.2023. The Tribunal observed that her father had died on 10.02.1998,
whereas she was married to Shri Shahid Ahmed on 18.04.1971. Her
husband died on 16.12.2005, i.e., after the death of her father. Thus, her
husband was alive at the time of her father's death and she was dependent
upon her husband. It was also admitted by her that she shifted to her father's
house after the death of her husband. Therefore, she was not dependent
upon her father at the time of his death.
17. The aforesaid order was challenged before the Hon'ble Allahabad
High Court in Writ-A No. 19022 of 2023, Smt. Rukaiya Khatoon v. Union
of India and Others , decided on 09.11.2023 . The Hon'ble High Court
considered Railway Board Circular No. RBE 99/2013 dated 26.09.2013 and
held that a widowed or divorced daughter must fulfill the prescribed
eligibility conditions at the time of the death of her parent who was a
Railway employee. The Hon’ble Court further observed that where the
husband of a married daughter was alive at the time of her parent's death
and she became a widow only thereafter, she was not entitled to family
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
pension under the said provision. The relevant portion of the aforesaid
judgment is reproduced below:-
“9. In the present case, the petitioner is the daughter of Warasat Hussain, the deceased
railway employee. She got married to one Shahid Ahmad on 18.04.1971. Seen in that
light, on the date of occurrence of the unfortunate death of her father i.e. 10.02.1998, she
was not eligible to family pension under the Rules as they existed. On that date, the
Railway Board Circular, RBE No. 99 of 2013, dated 26.09.2013 had not come in force. To
that extent, there is no dispute between the parties.
10. As to the effect of the Railway Board Circular, RBE No. 99 of 2013, dated 26.09.2013,
in light of paragraph-1 and 4 thereof extracted above, it is clear that the eligibility to
receive family pension was created also in favour widowed/divorced daughter of a railway
employee with effect from 30.08.2004. Again it cannot be disputed that the said eligibility

7

was created with retrospective effect i.e. for the benefit of such eligible widowed/divorced
daughter even in cases where the railway employee being the parent of the
widowed/divorced daughter (claiming eligibility), may have died before 30.08.2004.
However, the liability to pay family pension would arise prospectively, from 30.08.2004
only.
11. What therefore requires our consideration is whether the petitioner was eligible to
receive family pension arising from the death of her father which took place on
10.02.1998. Insofar as the petitioner is the daughter of the deceased, Warasat Hussain, a
railway employee who died on 10.02.1998, the condition prescribed in paragraph-1 of the
Railway Board Circular, RBE No. 99 of 2013, dated 26.09.2013, stood satisfied, to that
limited extent. However, the language of paragraph-4 of the said Circular leaves no
element of doubt that family pension would be payable to a widowed / divorced daughter
of a railway employee if she fulfils the eligibility conditions at the time of occurrence of
death of her parent who may have been a railway employee.
12. In view of that specific stipulation, the petitioner must establish the eligibility to
receive pension on the date of occurrence of death of her father, Warasat Hussain on
10.02.1998.
13. In that regard, it is undisputed that the petitioner was married to Shahid Ahmad on
10.04.1971. He was alive on the date of occurrence of death of Warasat Hussain i.e.
10.02.1998. The status of widowhood came to be attached to the petitioner after seven
years on 16.12.2005.
14. Therefore, on the date of occurrence of death of Warasat Hussain, the petitioner did
not fulfil the eligibility condition to receive family pension.
15. Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that if such interpretation is
made, the petitioner would have remained ineligible to receive family pension even if
Shahid Ahmad had predeceased Warasat Husssain, is therefore misconceived. In cases
where a married daughter of a railway employee either had divorced or if she may lose
her husband during the life time of her parent-a railway employee, by virtue of the
express language of paragraph-4 of the Railway Board Circular, RBE No. 99 of 2013,
dated 26.09.2013, eligibility condition to receive family pension would always stand
fulfilled on the date of occurrence of such death.
16. In such cases, subject to fulfilment of all other conditions, the claim for family
pension may be tested on its own merits.
17. In view of the above, we find no error committed by the Tribunal in rejecting the
Original Application on the reasoning that the husband of the petitioner was alive on the
date of occurrence of death of her father who was a railway employee.
18. The writ petition lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs”.
18. The principle laid down in the aforesaid judgment applies to the facts
MANISH KUMAR
of the present case. The applicant's husband was alive on the date of her
SRIVASTAVA
mother's death. She became a widow only thereafter. Therefore, she did not
fulfill the prescribed condition on the relevant date.
19. The applicant has also challenged the impugned order dated
12.06.2025 on the ground that it is a non-speaking order. The impugned
order dated 12.06.2025 is quoted herein below:-
“
उ ƣ र म Ú य रेल

8

( .)
काया [ लय मंडल रेल ĤĦ धक का झांसी
/ -09/ -59/50/174 , -
प ğ क पी ईएसपी आर Į ीमती जय कुमार ȣ राय प × नी Į ी सुनील कुमार Ǔ न म ɪ टा
, ,
गाँव ͧ समराहा झाँसी उ० Ĥ ०
:-12.06.2025
Ǒ दनांक
- . . . . ./ . / .
ͪ वषय è व० Į ी राम ͩ कशन ğ Ûġ ड Þ एम एम सी ए Ö ड ड Þ झॉसी मेडी
पु मूलच भू पू लू लू
10.05.1993 /
अन ͩ फट Ǒ द० के प × नी ɮ वारा ͪ वधवा तलाकशुदा पु ğ ी Į ीमती जय कुमार ȣ राय के

प ǐ रवार प Ʌ शन भुगतान के संब Û ध म Ʌ ।

उपरो È त ͪ वषयां ͩ कत के स à ब Û ध म Ʌ आपको अवगत कराया जाता है ͩ क आपके ɮ वारा इस

काया [ लय म Ʌ आवेदन Ĥè ͩ कया था िजसम Ʌ आपने कम चार [ ȣ व उनक ȧ प × नी के ×
तुत भू०पू० मृ यु
/
उपरा Û त ͪ वधवा ğ ी के Ǿ प म Ʌ प ǐ रवार प Ʌ शन मॉग क ȧ है।
तलाकशुदा पु भुगतान हेतु

इस स à ब Û ध म Ʌ आपको अवगत कराया जाता है ͩ क स ¢ म अ ͬ धकार ȣ महोदय के ɮ वारा जाँच म Ʌ

पाया गया है ͩ क मौजुदा रेलवे बोड [ के Ǔ नयम ɉ व Ĥ ावधान ɉ के अनुसार आप पा ǐ रवा ǐ रक प Ʌ शन के

ͧ लए È त नह ȣ ं पायी गयीं है।
उपयु

अतः आप प ǐ रवार प Ʌ शन Ĥ ा Ü त करने क ȧ पा ğ ता नह ȣ ं रखती है आपका Ĥ करण ब Û द ͩ कया जाता
“
है।
20. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the applicant’s claim was
rejected on the basis of the Rules and instructions applicable to Railway
services. An order which has been passed relying upon the applicable Rules
and instructions, cannot be held to be unreasoned or non-speaking,
particularly when the applicant’s eligibility has been considered. Therefore,
the submission made on behalf of the applicant in this regard is also not
acceptable. It further appears that the applicant repeatedly submitted
representations seeking family pension on one ground or another, even
when the earlier grounds raised by her were found to be untenable or had
become infructuous.
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
22. In view of the ratio laid down in OA No. 806/2019 (supra), which
was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court in the aforesaid writ petition, I am
of the view that no interference is required in the impugned order. The OA,
being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as
to costs. All associated MAs stand disposed of.

( Justice Om Prakash –VII )
Member (J)
Manish/-