Combined family income cannot be mechanically attributed as an unmarried daughter’s individual income for family pension eligibility.

The applicant, Diksha Choudhary, is the unmarried daughter of Late Smt. Devi Rani, a Constable in IRP 15th Battalion, J&K Police, who died in harness on 17 July 2019. At that time, the applicant was a minor. Family pension was initially sanctioned to her father, Narotam Singh, but ceased after he remarried on 6 December 2021.

The applicant thereafter applied for sanction of family pension as the next eligible claimant. Her claim was processed and forwarded to the Accountant General along with the requisite documents.

An income certificate dated 17 March 2023 reflected annual income of Rs. 4,92,000, equivalent to Rs. 41,000 per month. Respondent No. 1 treated this as exceeding the permissible income ceiling under SRO-354 dated 6 October 2015 and closed the applicant’s claim by communication dated 23 May 2023.

The applicant contended that the certificate reflected the combined income of herself and her father, who had remarried, lived separately, and did not maintain her. She asserted that she had no independent source of income.

Whether the respondents were justified in rejecting the applicant’s claim for family pension by treating the combined income reflected in the income certificate as her individual income?

Whether the applicant was entitled to a direct direction for sanction of family pension, or whether the matter required reconsideration by the competent authority after verification of her individual income and other eligibility conditions?

The Tribunal applied the applicable family-pension rules, particularly SRO-354 dated 6 October 2015, under which an unmarried daughter’s eligibility is subject to the prescribed income ceiling, stated in the judgment as the minimum family pension of Rs. 3,500 per month together with dearness relief.

The governing principle was that where eligibility depends upon the claimant’s income, the authority must determine the claimant’s individual income from all sources; a combined or family income figure cannot automatically be attributed entirely to the claimant without proper verification.

The Tribunal further applied the principle that a competent authority must base an adverse administrative decision on clear, relevant, and properly ascertained material and must reconsider the matter by passing a reasoned and speaking order.

The Tribunal held that the applicant’s status as the unmarried daughter and next potential claimant was not in dispute, and that the claim had been rejected solely on the income criterion.

Although Respondent No. 1 had requested an income certificate showing the applicant’s income from all sources, the certificate relied upon reflected a combined income of the applicant and her father. The authority therefore lacked an unambiguous basis for concluding that the entire annual income of Rs. 4,92,000 was the applicant’s personal income.

The applicant’s assertion that her father had remarried, lived separately, and did not maintain her further demonstrated the need for individual income verification, although the Tribunal left the ultimate legal effect of those circumstances to the competent authority.

Accordingly, the rejection based mechanically on the combined income figure was unsustainable, but the Tribunal declined to grant family pension directly because entitlement also depended on compliance with the income ceiling and all other applicable conditions.

The communication dated 23 May 2023 closing the applicant’s family-pension claim was set aside insofar as it was based on the existing income certificate.

The respondents were directed to permit the applicant to furnish, or to obtain themselves, a fresh income certificate specifically showing her individual income from all sources, without mechanically including her father’s income merely because of their relationship.

The competent authority was directed to reconsider the claim under the applicable rules, including SRO-354, and pass a reasoned and speaking order within three months of receiving the certified copy of the order.

The Tribunal expressly declined to determine the applicant’s ultimate entitlement; consequential benefits were to follow only if she satisfied the income criterion and all other eligibility requirements.