An otherwise eligible unmarried daughter cannot be denied family pension solely for omission from service records.

Late Shanti Prasad Jain, a Head Goods Clerk in the Railways, retired on 31 August 1981 and died on 8 December 1991. After his death, his widow, Angoori Devi, was sanctioned and paid a post-retiral benefit described in the record as family pension, allegedly from 1994 until her death on 3 May 2014.

The applicant, Usha Jain, claimed to be their unmarried daughter and applied for family pension after her mother’s death. Her claim was rejected on 6 October 2016 because her name did not appear in her mother’s pension papers or the relevant family declaration.

The applicant relied on identity documents and a registered sale deed, and subsequently obtained a decree dated 30 November 2018 in Civil Suit No. 440/2017 declaring her to be the daughter of Shanti Prasad Jain and Angoori Devi.

She submitted further representations and a legal notice in September 2024 seeking family pension from 3 May 2014, together with arrears and interest.

The respondents contended that Shanti Prasad Jain had not opted for the pension scheme and that the amount paid to Angoori Devi was ex gratia under a contributory scheme, not family pension. They also relied on the absence of the applicant’s name in the 1980 declaration and objected to the delay and maintainability of the claim.

Whether the applicant, as the unmarried daughter of Late Shanti Prasad Jain and Late Angoori Devi, was entitled to family pension after the death of her mother, subject to the applicable Railway pension rules and eligibility conditions?

Whether the absence of the applicant’s name in the service records, pension papers, or family declaration was sufficient to deny her family-pension claim?

Whether the delay in approaching the Tribunal and the earlier rejection of the claim extinguished the applicant’s substantive entitlement to family pension?

Whether the applicant was entitled to arrears from 3 May 2014 and consequential interest?

The Tribunal applied Rule 75(6) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, concerning family pension payable to eligible children, including an unmarried daughter, after the death or ineligibility of the widow; it also referred to Rule 50(9)(a) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021, under which an unmarried daughter who is not earning her livelihood may qualify for family pension.

The Tribunal relied on the Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare Office Memorandum dated 11 September 2013, which clarifies that eligibility depends on dependency and fulfilment of the prescribed conditions, not merely on the child’s inclusion in pension papers.

It considered Dhatchayani v. Ministry of Railways, O.A. No. 310/0098/2021, concerning family pension to an unmarried railway daughter, while distinguishing it on the factual issue of the deceased employee’s pensionary status.

The Tribunal also relied on Mala Devi v. Union of India & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 10672 of 2016, and Prabhavati Devi v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 752, for the principle that beneficial pension provisions must be applied to protect the statutory entitlement of eligible family members.

Further, relying on Shipra Sengupta v. Mridul Sengupta, (2009) 10 SCC 680, Vishin Khanchandani v. Vidya Khanchandani, AIR 2000 SC 2747, and Shakti Yezdani v. Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar, Civil Appeal No. 7107 of 2017, it held that nomination or omission from records does not override the substantive rights of an otherwise eligible claimant.

The Tribunal held that the applicant’s status as the daughter of Shanti Prasad Jain and Angoori Devi was established by the competent Civil Court’s decree and could not be rejected solely because her name was absent from an earlier departmental declaration.

The respondents’ description of the benefit paid to Angoori Devi as ex gratia under a contributory scheme created an issue regarding the applicable pension regime, but the Tribunal found that the record showed that she had in fact been sanctioned and paid the benefit after her husband’s death, and that the applicant’s entitlement had to be assessed under the applicable family-pension provisions rather than by nomenclature alone.

Since the applicant was unmarried, claimed dependency, and was not shown to be earning her livelihood, the omission of her name from the pension papers was not treated as a substantive disqualification.

Although the Tribunal noted the delay after the rejection in 2016, it held that a subsequent representation could not create a fresh cause of action, but that delay alone could not extinguish a statutory pension entitlement where the claimant otherwise satisfied the eligibility conditions.

The respondents’ denial of family pension to the applicant was quashed, and the respondents were directed to sanction and release family pension in her favour from 3 May 2014, the date of death of her mother, Angoori Devi, together with consequential arrears.

The payment was to be made within three months of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

If the respondents failed to comply within that period, the applicant would be entitled to interest on the arrears at GPF rates for the period beyond three months.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of, with no order as to costs.