While granting relief to the daughter of a deceased employee of the Agartala Municipal Corporation by asking the Corporation to pay her family pension, the Tripura High Court has held that neither Rule 8 of the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised) Pension Rules, 2017 nor the amendment to the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 states explicitly that to claim the benefit of Family Pension, the daughter of the pensioner should be a divorcee at the time of his death.

The High Court was considering a writ appeal preferred against the judgment of the Single Judge rejecting the grant of family pension.

The Bench comprising Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Biswajit Palit held, “Neither Rule 8 quoted above nor the amendment to the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 states explicitly that to claim the benefit of Family Pension, the daughter of the pensioner should be a divorcee at the time of his death.”

“When such a requirement is not provided in the applicable rule, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge erred in reading such a requirement into Rule 8”, it added.

Senior Advocate Purusuttam Roy Barman represented the Appellant while Additional Govt Advocate Dipankar Sarma represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The appeal was filed by the daughter of an employee of the Agartala Municipal Corporation, who superannuated on October 1, 2004. After his superannuation, he was receiving pension as per the applicable rules. He died in 2018 and his wife predeceased him. The appellant and her husband filed for mutual consent divorce before the Family Court which was granted in 2021. The appellant then applied for Family Pension as per the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pension) Rules, 2017.

Her request was rejected by the Agartala Municipal Corporation on the ground that the Memorandum No.F.8(8)-FIN-(G)/96 (PII)/511, dated March 28, 2018 enabling a divorcee daughter of a State Government pensioner to get Family Pension admissible in the event of death of the pensioner, had not yet been adopted and ratified by the said Corporation and therefore, her case for payment of such pension could not be considered. The Appellant then filed a petition challenging the said rejection of her claim for Family Pension on the ground that she was living in her father’s house for more than 40 years, as a few days after her marriage, her husband went missing.

The Single Judge agreed with the appellant that as per Rule 8 of the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised) Pension Rules, 2017, a divorced daughter of the original pensioner, who was a Government employee, is entitled to get Family Pension as per the said Rule, subject to the conditions mentioned therein. However, the relief was denied to her on the ground that on the date of death of her father, the appellant was not a divorced daughter at the time of the death of her father, as her marriage was subsisting on that date. The appellant

Reasoning

The Bench noted that Rule 8 of the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised) Pension Rules, 2017 enables a divorced daughter also to get Family Pension. On a perusal of the divorce petition, the Bench noticed that the appellant was admittedly dependent on her father during his lifetime and also at the time of his death on December 2, 2018.

It was the contention of the Agartala Municipal Corporation that the husband deserting her immediately after the marriage cannot be taken at face value. Rejecting such contention, the Bench stated, “It is difficult to believe that women in India, for the sake of paltry Family Pension would go to the extent of making false pleas in their divorce application and would break up their marriage. Also her husband has also agreed to her plea and had not disputed the same. It is unfortunate that such an unfair stand has been taken by the Agartala Municipal Corporation.”

Further, referring to an Office Memorandum issued by the Government of India on July 19, 2017, the Bench stated that the same was indicative of the fact that a daughter need not be a divorcee on the date of the death of her father/ pensioner to be eligible to get Family Pension.

Thus, allowing the writ appeal, the Bench directed the respondents, Agartala Municipal Corporation, to pay Family Pension to the appellant from the date she secured the divorce decree and continue to pay the same during her lifetime.

Cause Title: Smt. Ujjwala Rani Paul v. Agartala Municipal Corporation (Neutral Citation: 2026:THC:1129-DB)

Appearance

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Purusuttam Roy Barman, Advocate Samarjit Bhattacharjee

Respondent: Additional Govt Advocate Dipankar Sarma, Advocates Arijit Bhaumik, Agniva Chakraborti

Click here to read/download Order


Tags: