Family pension representation must be decided by a reasoned speaking order within two months.

The applicant, Basanti Koiri, is the daughter of Late Sukdev Prasad Koiri, a former employee of the Department of Telecommunications who retired on 13 December 1976 and died on 18 November 2008.

After his death, the applicant’s mother, Smt. Lakshmi Devi Koiri, received family pension until her death on 30 September 2024.

The applicant submitted a representation dated 22 November 2024 seeking grant of family pension as an unmarried daughter.

As no pension had been released, she filed the Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking directions for grant of family pension and reliance on departmental communications dated 11 August 2025 and 25 February 2026.

The respondents stated that the matter was under consideration and referred to the letter dated 25 February 2026 requiring resubmission of necessary documents duly countersigned by the competent authority.

Whether the respondents should consider the applicant’s representation for grant of family pension as an unmarried daughter and communicate a reasoned decision to her?

Whether the applicant, upon establishing her eligibility under the applicable family-pension rules, should be paid family pension?

The application was entertained under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which provides the statutory mechanism for approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal in service matters.

The Tribunal applied the administrative-law requirement that a competent authority must consider a pending representation and communicate its decision through a reasoned and speaking order.

It further directed that family pension could be released only if the applicant was found eligible under the applicable pension rules and upon submission of the necessary supporting documents.

No specific pension rule or judicial precedent was cited or adjudicated upon; the Tribunal expressly kept the merits and all legal issues open.

The Tribunal did not determine whether the applicant substantively satisfied the conditions for family pension.

Since the respondents had already indicated that the matter was under consideration and had sought resubmission of necessary documents, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to require the competent authority to examine the applicant’s representation in accordance with law.

The authority was directed to assess the applicant’s eligibility, issue a reasoned and speaking order, and release the pension within the prescribed period if she was found eligible.

The applicant was correspondingly directed to furnish all necessary documents.

The Tribunal clarified that it had not entered into the merits of the claim and that all issues remained open for consideration by the respondents.

Respondent No. 4, or any other competent authority, was directed to consider the applicant’s representation for family pension, take a decision within two months from receipt of a certified copy of the order, and communicate that decision through a reasoned and speaking order.

If the applicant was found eligible, family pension was to be released within the same period.

The applicant was directed to provide all necessary documents, and there was no order as to costs.