Family pension to unmarried daughters beyond 25 subject to strict eligibility conditions.

The applicants are the children of the late Indradeo Das, a regular class IV employee of BSNL, Dumka, who passed away on August 18, 2009.

His wife, Chanda Devi, initially received family pension, but she passed away on December 11, 2022, leading to the cessation of the family pension.

Chanda Devi had previously made representations on February 5, 2015, and September 25, 2017, to include additional dependent children in the pension book, but no action was taken.

After Chanda Devi's death, applicant Mamta Devi, on January 2, 2023, submitted a representation for herself and on behalf of her siblings to include their names and continue the family pension.

Applicant no. 6, Amit Kumar, had crossed 25 years of age, and Bharti Kumari was married, so they were not claiming family pension.

Another representation was made on January 16, 2023, by applicant no. 3 requesting the inclusion of other eligible daughters and sons and the resumption of family pension in favor of applicant no. 1, as she and her siblings are unmarried and applicant no. 5 is under 25.

Due to the lack of action, the applicants filed OA No. 217/2023, which was later withdrawn on April 12, 2023, with liberty to approach the authorities again.

Subsequent representations were made by applicant no. 1 on June 19, 2023, and July 7, 2023.

While the respondents acknowledged receipt of these representations and admitted that some applicants might be eligible based on Aadhar card data, they stated that the settlement of family pension was contingent on receiving requisite pension papers and documents from eligible family members.

The respondents' various offices communicated requests for service books and documents, acknowledging that the matter was pending for necessary action.

The applicants contended that all relevant documents had already been submitted.

1. Whether the respondents were obligated to sanction and release family pension to the eligible dependents of the deceased employee, Indradeo Das, with effect from December 11, 2022.

2. Whether the applicants were entitled to statutory interest on the arrears amount of family pension due to the delay in its release.

3. Whether the respondents should be directed to insert the names of the applicants in the pension book of the deceased employee.

The court primarily applied the provisions of the CCS (Pension) Rule 2021.

Rule 50(9)(d) states that family pension is payable to children below the age of twenty-five years, who fulfill eligibility conditions, in order of their birth.

Rule 50(9)(j) provides for family pension to an unmarried, widowed, or divorced daughter beyond the age of twenty-five years for life, or until marriage/re-marriage, or until earning a livelihood, whichever is earliest, subject to conditions including initial payment to children per clause (d) and payment to the elder daughter first until she marries, re-marries, or starts earning a livelihood.

The applicants' eligibility for family pension is governed by these rules.

The court noted that the respondents admitted the applicability of CCS (Pension) Rules 2021 and their obligation to disburse family pension to eligible family members.

The respondents' written statement indicated that out of five applicants, only applicant no. 4 was initially entitled, followed by applicant no. 5 till the age of 25, and then applicant no. 1, subject to conditions.

The Rules explicitly state that family pension is payable to children below 25 years in order of birth.

Furthermore, an unmarried daughter dependent on the employee/pensioner is entitled to family pension even beyond 25 years until marriage, re-marriage, or earning a livelihood, with the elder daughter receiving it first.

The applicants had stated that applicants no. 1 to 5 were unmarried, and applicant no. 5 had not crossed 25 years.

The court found that despite numerous representations from the applicants, the competent authorities have been prolonging the process by repeatedly requesting documents that the applicants claim to have already submitted.

The court observed that the letter dated June 19, 2023, from applicant no. 1 contained all necessary details and was acknowledged by the authorities.

The court underscored that pension is not a bounty and strict adherence to rules is mandated, criticizing the significant delay and negligence of the authorities.

Based on Rule 50(9)(j)(v), applicant no. 1 was deemed entitled to receive the family pension.

The Opposite Parties/Competent Authorities are directed to include the names of all dependents of late Indradeo Das in the pension record, in accordance with applicable rules.

The Opposite Parties/Competent Authorities are directed to resume the payment of family pension to applicant no. 1/eligible dependent along with arrears from January 2023 until regular payment is resumed.

The Opposite Parties/Competent Authorities are directed to pay simple interest at 8% per annum on the entire arrears amount of family pension to the entitled applicant.

The Opposite Parties shall comply with these directions strictly within 90 days from the date of production of the certified copy of the order.

The authorities retain the liberty to examine/investigate the eligibility of applicant no. 1/dependents in accordance with the 2021 rules.