[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Union Of India, Through General ... vs Seeta Jhariya C/O Shiv Kumar Jhariya on 3 December, 2025
Author: Anil S. Kilor
Bench: Anil S. Kilor
2025:BHC-NAG:13893-DB
120) WP 7593-2025-J.odt 1/7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 7593 OF 2025
1) Union of India,
Through General Manager,
South East Central Railway, Bilaspur.
2) Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,
South East Central Railway, Nagpur
3) Senior Divisional Finance Manager,
South East Central Railway, Nagpur ....PETITIONERS
(Original Resp.)
....VERSUS....
Seeta Jhariya c/o. Shiv Kumar Jhariya
Aged about : adult,
R/o: Ward No. 8, Talab Tola, Nainpur
Distt: Mandla, Pin code: 481 776 ....RESPONDENT
(Original Applicant)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S.A.Chaudhari, Advocate for petitioners.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND
RAJNISH R. VYAS, JJ.
DATE : 03/12/2025
JUDGMENT (PER: RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.)
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. The petitioners herein are the original respondents
and the respondent herein is the original applicant before the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai in
Original Application No. 1380/2024.
3. A challenge in this petition is to the judgment dated
09/07/2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Mumbai Bench, Mumbai in Original Application No.
1380/2024. By way of the said judgment, the learned Tribunal
has set aside the impugned order dated 27/03/2024 and directed
the original respondent(s) to reconsider the case of the original
applicant for grant of family pension. Further directions were
also given.
4. The communication dated 27/03/2024 was issued
by the respondent no. 2 rejecting the request of the original
applicant for grant of pension, on the ground that, the decree of
divorce is dated 01/07/2015, whereas the death of deceased
employee is 26/04/2005 and the death of mother of the original
applicant is 01/12/2013, which is prior to the date of decree of
divorce and therefore, the case of family pension of the original
applicant cannot be considered.
5. The original applicant was the daughter of one
Bisanlal who retired from railway service on superannuation in
the year 2003. He died on 26/04/2005. After his death, his
widow Khilla Bai, mother of original applicant, was getting
family pension till her death on 01/12/2013.
6. The original applicant's marriage was performed on
30/06/1992, but due to certain reasons, thereafter, she returned
to the parental house. According to the original applicant, her
husband agreed to give a divorce to her on 25/11/2009 as per
the prevailing local customs. She submitted that she had also
filed a Hindu Marriage Suit No. 106 A of 2015 before the Court
at Waraseoni, District Balaghat and her marriage was dissolved
on 01/07/2015. She further contended that the office of the
original respondent by various Office Memorandum had
granted pension to the widow daughter who had no
independent source of income at the time of death of her
mother. She states that she was also entitled to pension since she
was residing separately from her husband and was not having
any source of income.
7. The learned counsel of the original applicant
submits that considering the aforesaid aspect, the learned
Tribunal has rightly set aside the communication dated
27/03/2024 and therefore, the impugned order is just and
proper.
8. Per contra, Mr. Chaudhari, learned counsel for the
petitioners by filing the present petition has contended that the
Tribunal has not given proper findings and failed to appreciate
that the rules are clear about eligibility criteria for grant of family
pension to the divorced daughter. He contended that the
original applicant did not fulfill the eligibility criteria about the
date of divorce which was after the death of the parents of
original applicant. He further contended that the learned
Tribunal committed error by not considering the Office
Memorandum dated 19/07/2017 which clearly states that the
family pension towards divorced daughter will be granted in
such cases where the divorce proceedings had been filed during
the life-time of the employee/pensioner or his/her spouse but
divorce took place after their death. According to him, in the
present case, the competent Court had passed the decree of
divorce after the death of pensioner/employee or his spouse.
9. We have considered the arguments advanced by the
parties and have also gone through the record of the case. The
learned Tribunal, while setting aside the order dated
27/03/2024, by which a request of the original applicant for
grant of pension was rejected, dealt extensively with the matter.
The learned Tribunal while deciding the issue has rightly stated
that the original applicant was married on 30/06/1992 and after
her marriage, there was a family dispute, therefore, during the
lifetime of her father, she left the house of her husband and
returned to her parents' home, which resulted in customary
divorce in the year 2009. The aforesaid fact, according to the
learned Tribunal, was not disputed by the original respondent.
The learned Tribunal has further dealt with the various judicial
pronouncements of the different High Courts and finally set
aside the impugned order.
10. At this stage, it is necessary to reproduce the
observations of this Court in the case of Union of India and
another V/s. Usha Eknath Patil reported in 2018(4) Mh.L.J.
450, wherein the similar issue was involved. The relevant
paragraphs of the said judgment are as under:-
"21. There cannot be any debate about this proposition. Here,
Clause 19(b), mentioned supra, includes not only a widowed or
divorced daughter but also unmarried daughter. The said clause
also entitles adopted son or daughter to family pension. Clause
therefore is wide and looks after welfare of family of deceased
employee. Clauses 4 and 5 (highlighted portion, supra) of office
memorandum dated 11-9-2013 show the intention of Railways
not to leave a destitute woman without any means of livelihood.
This object and intention can not be defeated in present facts.
22. In present facts, though customary divorce on 21-7-1992
may not be legally recognized, facts show that from said date
Usha was not residing with her husband and was therefore
member of family of her deceased father. She was therefore a
destitute residing with her mother Vatsala who expired on 28-
12-1999. When the provision entitles unmarried or a divorced
or a widowed daughter to family pension, we find that Usha is
definitely covered thereunder."
11. Since the findings given by the learned Tribunal
cannot be said to be perverse or without jurisdiction, we are not
inclined to interfere in the impugned order passed by the learned
Tribunal and therefore, the present petition deserves to be
dismissed. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed.
(RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.)
B.T.K.
Signed by: Mr. B.T. Khapekar
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 09/12/2025 20:18:55
