NILAM KUMARI vs 508 ARMY BASE WORKSHOP

Court
Central Administrative Tribunal

Reserved on 26.10.2026


CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD .

Allahabad this, the 28 th day of October, 2026.


Original Application No. 1115 of 2024

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (Judicial)

Nilam Kumari, daughter of Late Surendra Kumar, resident of 125/13/1A,
Ganga Nagar, Rajapur, Allahabad, now Prayagraj.
. . .Applicant

By Advocate : Shri Manoj Kumar Mishra
​ ​ ​ ​
V E R S U S

1. ​ Union of India through Secretary, Department of Pension & Pensioner ​
​ Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi.
2.​ The Commandant & M.D., 508 Army Base Workshop, Chheoki ​
​ Naini, Allahabad–212105.
3.​ The EME Officer (Civ) Account Officer for Commandant & ​
​ Management, 508 Army Base Workshop, Chheoki Naini, ​
​ Allahabad–212105.
.. . .Respondents
​ ​
By Advocate : Shri M.P. Mishra
​ ​
O R D E R


​ Shri Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri
M.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents are present and heard.
2.​ By means of this OA, the applicants have sought the following reliefs
:
(a)​ the Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to quash the
impugned order dated 22.07.2024 passed by the respondent no.3
(Annexure No.1 to the compilation No. I to this Original
Application);
Page 1 of 5
ASHISH

KUMAR

(b) the Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondent
authorities to provide the family pension to the applicant
dependent of the father (deceased) in accordance with law within
stipulated time as fixed by this Hon’ble Tribunal.
(c) the Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondent
authorities to give any other and further relief, which the Hon’ble
Tribunal may deem fit and proper under the facts and
circumstances of the case.

3.​ The applicant has filed the present Original Application challenging the
impugned order dated 22.07.2024 passed by respondent No. 3, whereby her claim
for grant of family pension in respect of her deceased father, Late Shyam Lal, was
rejected. The applicant's father was employed in the 508 Army Base Workshop,
Allahabad, and retired after rendering his service. He died on 11.01.2021, and the
applicant's mother earlier died on 11.11.2020. It is also pleaded that applicant’s
husband died on 01.12.2020. The applicant, aged about 48 years and stated to be a
widow daughter , obtained a family membership certificate from the Tehsildar,
Sadar, District Prayagraj, dated 30.08.2023. She submitted several representations
and supporting documents to the respondent authorities for grant of family
pension. However, her claim was not accepted, primarily on the ground of
discrepancies in her name recorded in her Aadhaar card and other documents.
Despite correction of her name and submission of the requisite documents, the
respondents did not grant her family pension. The applicant contends that, being
an eligible dependent daughter of the deceased pensioner, she is entitled to family
pension under the applicable rules, including the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, and
has, therefore, approached this Tribunal seeking appropriate relief.
4.​
The respondents, in their counter reply, have submitted that the
applicant's claim for family pension was not processed as she failed to
establish that she was dependent upon her father, Late Shyam Lal, during his
lifetime. It is stated that the deceased employee retired on 31.10.1999 and
died on 11.01.2021, whereas the applicant's husband had died on
01.12.2020, and the deceased employee had never intimated the department
regarding the applicant's marital status or dependency. The respondents have
relied upon Rule 9(j)(iii) of the relevant provisions of the CCS (Pension)
Rules, 1972, as amended by the Gazette notification dated 20.12.2021,
which provides that an unmarried, widowed or divorced daughter must have
been dependent upon her parent(s) during their lifetime. It is further
submitted that the applicant's name and marital status were not reflected in
Page 2 of 5
ASHISH

KUMAR

the service records of the deceased employee, and that the applicant was
residing separately in her own house, whereas her father was residing at a
different address as per the service records. The respondents have also
referred to reports received from the District Magistrate, Prayagraj,
regarding verification of the applicant's residence and family particulars, and
have contended that the documents submitted by her do not establish her
dependency upon her father during his lifetime. Accordingly, the
respondents have justified the impugned order dated 22.07.2024 rejecting
the applicant's claim for family pension.
4.​ A rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the applicant reiterating
almost the same facts as mentioned in the OA.
5.​ I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6.​ Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the
widowed daughter of Late Shyam Lal, a retired employee of the 508 Army
Base Workshop, Allahabad, and that after the death of her husband on
01.12.2020, her father also died on 11.01.2021. It is contended that the
applicant is entitled to family pension as a dependent widowed daughter of
the deceased employee and that she submitted the requisite documents,
including the family membership certificate dated 30.08.2023, along with
several representations for grant of family pension. However, her claim was
rejected by the impugned order dated 22.07.2024 on the ground that her
dependency upon her father during his lifetime was not established, despite
the documents submitted by her. Hence, prayer was made to quash the
impugned order and grant family pension in applicant’s favour.
7.​ Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant's claim
for family pension was rightly rejected vide the impugned order dated
22.07.2024, as she failed to establish that she was dependent upon her father,
Late Shyam Lal, during his lifetime. It is contended that the deceased
employee had never intimated the department regarding the applicant's
marital status or her dependency, and her particulars were not reflected in the
service records. The respondents further submit that, as per the applicable
provisions of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, as amended by the Gazette
notification dated 20.12.2021, an unmarried, widowed or divorced daughter
Page 3 of 5
ASHISH

KUMAR

must have been dependent upon her parent(s) during their lifetime to be
eligible for family pension. It is further stated that the applicant was residing
separately in her own house, whereas her father was residing at a different
address, and the reports obtained from the District Magistrate, Prayagraj, did
not establish the requisite dependency. Accordingly, the respondents justify
the impugned order and oppose the claim of the applicant for grant of family
pension.
8.​ I have considered the rival submissions and gone through the entire
records.
9.​ Before discussing the submissions raised across the BAR, it will be
useful to reproduce the impugned order under challenge. The same is as
under:-

508 ,
श्रीमती नीलम कुमारी थल सेना बेस वर्कशॉप
​ ​ ​ ​ ​ , ​
स्व० श्याम लाल छिवकी नैनी प्रयागराज
पुत्री
​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​
: 125/13/1 , ,​
निवासी ए गंगा नगर
, –211001
राजापुर इलाहाबाद ।
: 22 , 2024
दिनांक जुलाई
​
प्रारम्भिक पेंशन प्रकरण श्रीमती नीलम
सूची कुमारी

स्व० श्याम लाल
पुत्री
1. 02 , 2024
आपके प्रार्थना पत्र दिनांक अप्रैल के सम्बन्ध में।
2.
उपरोक्त के सम्बन्ध में आपको किया जाता है कि आपके पिता स्व०
सूचित

श्याम लाल ने अपने जीवनकाल किसी भी दस्तावेज आपका एवं अन्य बच्चों
में में

का विवाहित होने तथा उसके बाद आपका विधवा पुत्री के रूप में स्वयं पर आश्रित
,
होने की जानकारी नहीं दी है। आपके द्वारा प्रेषित दस्तावेज में भारत का राजपत्र
,
पेंशन नियमावली के सम्बन्ध में भारत का राजपत्र
. .- . .- .-20122021-232015, , -II, 3,
सी जी डी एल ई असाधारण भाग खण्ड उपखण्ड
(i), , , 20, 2021 / 29, 1943
नई दिल्ली सोमवार दिसम्बर अग्रहायण में नियम
9(j)(iii) , ‘ /
के अनुसार अविवाहित या विधवा या तलाकशुदा पुत्री अपने पिता माता
- , ’ ( )
अथवा माता पिता पर आश्रित थी जब वे जीवित थे। फोटोप्रति संलग्न के
”
आपका पारिवारिक पेंशन का दावा नहीं बनता है।
अनुसार
( )​
ईएमई अधिकारी सिविल

लेखा अधिकारी

समादेशक एवं प्रबन्धन
कृते
Page 4 of 5
ASHISH

KUMAR

.​
10 Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the
principal issue for consideration is whether the applicant has established her
entitlement to family pension as the widowed daughter of the deceased
pensioner. The applicable provisions governing family pension require that
an unmarried, widowed or divorced daughter claiming family pension
beyond the prescribed age must satisfy the stipulated eligibility conditions,
including that she was dependent upon her parent or parents during their
lifetime. In the present case, the applicant has relied upon the family
membership certificate and other documents submitted along with her
representations. However, the material available on record does not
satisfactorily establish that the applicant was dependent upon her father, Late
Shyam Lal, during his lifetime. The respondents have specifically disputed
such dependency and have referred to the separate residential addresses of
the applicant and her father, as well as the absence of relevant particulars in
the service records. The applicant has not produced sufficient cogent
evidence to rebut the said contention and establish the requisite dependency.
Mere proof of her relationship with the deceased pensioner and her status as
a widowed daughter does not, by itself, establish fulfilment of all the
conditions prescribed for grant of family pension. In view of the foregoing
discussion, the Original Application is not liable to be allowed. Accordingly,
OA is dismissed . There shall be no order as to costs.
11.​ All associated MAs also stand disposed of.


​ ​ ​ ​ ​ (Justice Om Prakash VII)
​ ​ ​ Member(Judicial)
Ashish
Page 5 of 5
ASHISH

KUMAR