Authorities must adjudicate widowed daughters’ family pension claims via reasoned orders and personal hearings.

The applicant, a 71-year-old widowed housewife, is the daughter of Late Baidyanath Mukherjee, a former employee of the Military Engineer Services who retired on April 30, 1988, and died on February 8, 1993

Following the father’s death, the applicant’s mother received a family pension until her demise on July 28, 2021

The applicant, claiming total dependence on her parents after her husband’s death, applied for a secondary family pension on November 22, 2021

Although local authorities recommended her case following an inquiry, the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (PCDA), Allahabad, issued a letter dated February 26, 2024, withholding the pension because the applicant’s name was not found in the official records

The applicant submitted a further representation with updated documentation on November 21, 2025, which remains pending

1. Whether the respondent authority (PCDA, Allahabad) is obligated to consider the applicant's representation for family pension in light of the recommendation from the local field office and the evidence of dependency submitted by the applicant

The court exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which allows aggrieved persons to seek redressal for service matters

The matter was heard by a Single Bench as per the revised list issued under Section 5(6) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

The core legal principle applied is the requirement for administrative authorities to decide pending representations through reasoned and speaking orders, adhering to the principles of natural justice, such as providing an opportunity for a personal hearing

The Tribunal did not adjudicate on the merits of the applicant’s eligibility for the family pension

Instead, it focused on the procedural lapse regarding the pending representation.

The applicant argued that despite local recommendations from the CWE (AF) Kalaikunda, the PCDA Allahabad withheld the pension based solely on the absence of her name in historical records, ignoring current evidence of dependency and subsequent documentation

The respondents did not object to a direction for the administrative consideration of the claim subject to verification

Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the most appropriate course of action was to compel the competent authority to perform its administrative duty by reviewing the applicant’s pending representation dated November 21, 2025, in a time-bound manner

The authority is ordered to issue a reasoned and speaking order within three months of receiving the certified copy of the judgment, after granting the applicant an opportunity for a personal hearing

The Tribunal further held that if the applicant is found eligible upon verification, the family pension must be granted in accordance with the rules

No costs were awarded