An unmarried sister is ineligible for family pension despite being nominated by the deceased employee.

The petitioner, who has had a 90% hearing and speech impairment since birth, lived with her brother, a retired West Bengal government employee and her sole caregiver.

Her brother submitted a form naming her as nominee for family pension; the authority received the form and the PPO recorded her name.

After his death in November 2024, the authority rejected her claim in March 2025, stating that her inclusion had been inadvertent and that an unmarried sister was not eligible for family pension under the applicable rules.

The petitioner sought family pension, relying, among other grounds, on promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation.

Whether an unmarried sister named in a deceased government employee’s pension documents is eligible for family pension under Rule 7.1(e) of the West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971

Whether the authority’s receipt of the nomination form and recording of the petitioner’s name in the PPO created a promise, legitimate expectation, or estoppel requiring payment of family pension

Whether the petitioner could seek relaxation of the eligibility rules under Rule 4 of the DCRB Rules, 1971

Rule 7.1(e) of the DCRB Rules, 1971 defines the family members eligible for family pension; the listed categories include a spouse, specified children and dependent parents, but not an unmarried sister.

Promissory estoppel requires a promise or representation by the party to be bound and reliance on it; it cannot be used to confer a benefit contrary to statute.

Legitimate expectation likewise requires a relevant representation by the authority.

Rule 4 empowers the Government to dispense with or relax a requirement of the rules where necessary to deal with a case justly and equitably.

The Court distinguished State of Jharkhand v. Brahmputra Metallics Ltd., (2023) 10 SCC 634, and the cited decisions in Sabita Roy and Shiba Pada Sarkar on their facts.

The Court held that the petitioner’s unmarried-sister status placed her outside the categories eligible for family pension under Rule 7.1(e).

The brother’s submission of the form and the authority’s receipt of it did not amount to acceptance of her eligibility: the entitlement question arose only after his death, and the authority then rejected the claim.

Because the authority had made no promise or representation that the petitioner would receive family pension, neither promissory estoppel nor legitimate expectation applied; the nomination could not override the rules.

The Court nevertheless considered the exceptional circumstances and identified Rule 4 as the route by which the petitioner could seek relaxation.

It dismissed the petition but permitted the petitioner to apply to the Governor for relaxation under Rule 4, directing the State to provide assistance and ensure that the application was placed before the Governor for consideration.