Married Daughter Separated From Husband Not Entitled To Family Pension Under State Civil Services Pension Rules: Tripura High Court
The Tripura High Court made such an observation while considering a petition of a daughter of a deceased government employee.
The Tripura High Court has held that, as per the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pension) Rules, 2017, the condition precedent for entitlement to family pension is that the daughter should be a divorced daughter when the original pensioner died. The High Court further clarified that a married daughter separated from her husband is not entitled to such a benefit.
The petition before the High Court was filed by the daughter of a deceased government servant.
The Single Bench of Justice S. Datta Purkayastha held, “According to the Court, at the time of death of original pensioner and/or her spouse, the divorced daughter should have her dependency on her parent being separated from her husband. In the case in hand, it appears that the present petitioner had her dependency on her father at the time of his death. From the contents of her application submitted on 23.02.2022 to the Municipal Commissioner [Annexure-11], it appears that after a few days of her marriage, her husband left her in her father’s house and did not take her back again. She thus became dependent on her father but such dependency ceased to exist immediately on the death of her father and at that time, her status was of a ‘married daughter separated from her husband’ and not a divorced daugher. The Rules do not permit grant of family pension to said category of married daughters.”
Senior Advocate P. Roy Barman represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Arijit Bhaumik represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
A labourer, Rash Bihari Paul, working with Agartala Municipal Corporation, went on superannuation on October 1, 2004. During his lifetime, he received a pension as per the rules. He died in 2018. His wife pre-deceased him. The petitioner at the time of the death of the original deceased pensioner got married, but thereafter, the said marital bond could not be sustained, and ultimately, they got a decree of divorce.
Thereafter, the petitioner applied for a family pension as per the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pension) Rules, 2017. She also sent a legal notice, and the Municipal Authority rejected her prayer, taking the plea that the notification dated March 28, 2018, of the State Government by which the amended provision of pension rules was adopted, entitling the divorcee daughter to get pension, was not adopted by the Municipal Authority. It was in such circumstances that the petitioner approached the High Court.
Reasoning
Referring to the Revised Pension Rules, 2017, the Bench explained that Rule 8 of the said Rules makes provision for payment of family pension to the unmarried/widowed daughter/divorced/disabled child. As per this provision, the divorced daughter of the original pensioner, government employee, is entitled to get family pension on his or his spouse’s death, as the case may be.
“Therefore, the condition precedent for entitlement to family pension is that the daughter should be a divorced daughter when the original pensioner died as the right to receive such pension accrues on the death of the original pension or on the death of his/her spouse who was receiving the pension”, it added.
The Bench also referred to the Office Memo dated July 19, 2017 whereby it is clarified that the benefit of family pension should be extended to a divorced daughter in such cases where the divorce proceeding has been initiated in a competent Court during the life time of the employee/pensioner or his/her spouse, but divorce took place after their death, provided that the claimant fulfills all other conditions for grant of family pension.
Cosidering that at the time of death of the father of the petitioner, her status was not of a divorced daughter rather of a married daughter separated from her husband and dependant on her father, the Bench held that the Revised Pension Rules, 2017 does not cover the case of the petitioner to extend the benefit of family pension in her favour and there is no challenge regarding said Rules on the ground of arbitrariness or discrimination.
“The Court under Art.226 cannot rewrite a Rule by stretch of interpretation. This also cannot be treated as a case of discrimination amongst one homogenous class of people as only some specified categories of married daughters are entitled to get benefit of family pension and not all”, the Bench observed while dismissing the petition.
Cause Title: Smt. Ujjala Rani Paul v. Agartala Municipal Corporation (Case No. WP(C) 132 OF 2025)
Appearance
Petitioner: Senior Advocate P. Roy Barman, Advocate Samarjit Bhattacharjee
Respondent: Advocate Arijit Bhaumik