Divorced daughter with customary divorce is eligible for family pension under Railway Rules.

The applicant, Madhuben Chauhan, is the divorced daughter of a deceased railway employee, Purshottam Sagram Chauhan.

Her father passed away on 17.02.2001, and her mother passed away on 26.07.2012

The applicant was married on 25.02.2000, but her marriage was dissolved by a customary divorce deed on 30.07.2005

Following the customary divorce, she returned to her parental home and was dependent on her mother

During her mother's lifetime, the applicant's name was included in the revised PPO dated 15.06.2011 as an ineligible member for family pension, based on the customary divorce deed

However, after her mother's death, the respondents refused to grant her family pension, insisting on a divorce decree from a competent court

The applicant subsequently obtained a divorce decree from the Family Court on 04.07.2012, dissolving her marriage under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, with the court acknowledging the prior customary divorce

Despite submitting this court decree, the respondents continued to deny her family pension

The revised PPO dated 15.06.2011, which included the applicant as a divorcee daughter, was never disputed by the respondents

Whether the respondents' inaction in granting family pension to the applicant, a divorced daughter of a deceased railway employee, despite her name being mentioned in the revised PPO dated 15.06.2011, is illegal, unjust, arbitrary, and bad in law

Whether the respondents can insist on a divorce decree from a competent court for granting family pension to a divorced daughter when a customary divorce is recognized and unchallenged

Whether the applicant is entitled to family pension under Rule 75 of the Railway Pension Rules from the date of her eligibility, along with arrears and interest

The court primarily applied Rule 75 of the Railway Pension Rules, which provides for family pension to a divorced daughter

It also referred to Section 29(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which recognizes the validity of customary divorce permissible under community customs

The court relied on the principles established by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in `Union of India vs. Mayuriben Jani` (SCA No. 4792/2019) and `Union of India vs. Sudhaben Nayak` (SCA No. 324/2018), which held that insisting on a court decree for divorce is unjustified when a customary divorce is recognized and unchallenged

Furthermore, the principle of treating similarly situated persons similarly, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in `State of Karnataka and Ors. vs. C. Lalitha` (2006 (2) SCC 747), was used to advocate for similar treatment for the applicant

The court found that the applicant's customary divorce on 30.07.2005 was undisputed and unchallenged by the respondents

Importantly, the respondents had previously accepted this customary divorce and included the applicant's name as a dependent divorced daughter in the revised PPO dated 15.06.2011 during her mother's lifetime

This revised PPO was never disputed and served as the basis for pension benefits to the applicant's mother

The court emphasized that Rule 75 of the Railway Family Pension Rules, a benevolent legislation, does not specifically require a court decree for a 'divorced daughter'

The reliance on `Union of India vs. Mayuriben Jani` and `Union of India vs. Sudhaben Nayak` reinforced that insisting on a court decree when a customary divorce is valid and unchallenged amounts to "improving upon the provision of the Hindu Marriage Act"

The subsequent court decree obtained by the applicant merely authenticated her long-standing customary divorce

The tribunal concluded that denying the family pension to the applicant, whose case is squarely covered by previous judgments granting benefits to similarly situated divorced daughters, was arbitrary and in defiance of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India

The Tribunal directed the respondents to pay family pension to the applicant from the date she became eligible under Rule 75 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules

This includes arrears along with interest on delayed payment at the applicable GPF rate

The payment is to be made expeditiously, preferably within 90 days from the receipt of the order