The Calcutta High Court ruled that a divorced daughter can claim family pension if she was dependent and divorce proceedings began during the pensioner’s lifetime—even if the decree came later. Once dependency and timing are proved, the State cannot deny pension on technical delays.
Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by the Union of India challenging an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Kolkata, which directed the authorities to grant family pension to a divorced daughter. The dispute arose after the government refused pension on the ground that the divorce decree was passed after the death of the pensioner and his spouse.
The father of the applicant was a retired employee of South Eastern Railway who retired in 1983. His wife died in November 2011 and he passed away in April 2013. The daughter was married in 1991. Her husband had filed a divorce suit in 1997, but the proceedings were stayed due to non-payment of maintenance. Subsequently, the daughter herself filed a divorce case in 2014, which was finally decreed in September 2016.
The government authorities rejected her pension claim stating that since the divorce decree came after the parents’ death, she could not be treated as a dependent. The CAT disagreed and allowed the claim, holding that the purpose of family pension is to support a dependent family member. Aggrieved by this decision, the Union of India challenged the Tribunal’s order before the High Court.
The main argument of the petitioners was that the respondent failed to establish dependency on the date of her father’s death and relied upon an earlier judgment in Union of India vs. Jayanti Chatterjee. On the other hand, the respondent argued that she had been deserted by her husband long before her father’s death, had been residing in her parental home since the late 1990s, had no independent income, and was genuinely dependent on her father during his lifetime.
The High Court examined whether the daughter was dependent on her father at the time of his death and whether her case fell within the scope of the Department of Personnel & Training Office Memorandum dated 19 July 2017. The Court noted that the evidence clearly showed that the daughter had been deserted by her husband since the mid-1990s and had been living with and financially dependent on her father.
The Court relied on Clause 6 of the Office Memorandum and reproduced it exactly as follows:
“That, it has been decided to grant of family pension to the divorced Daughter in such cases where the divorce proceeding had been filed in a competent court during lifetime of the Pensioner/Employee or his/her spouse, but divorce took place after their death -provided the claimant fulfils all other conditions for grant of family pension under rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. In such cases, family pension will commence from the date of divorce.”
The Court observed that the object of granting family pension is to provide financial support to a dependent family member of the deceased employee. It noted that the husband had initiated divorce proceedings during the lifetime of the pensioner, although the case was stayed, and that the respondent later obtained a divorce decree based on long-term desertion. The matrimonial court had also recorded the husband’s admission that desertion existed since 1995, which was during the father’s lifetime.
The High Court held that the authorities had wrongly ignored these material facts and adopted a restrictive interpretation of the Office Memorandum. The Court clarified that the memorandum does not require the divorce to be finalized during the lifetime of the parents. What matters is that matrimonial proceedings existed during their lifetime and that the claimant satisfies the dependency conditions under Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules.
The Court further held that the respondent successfully proved that she was dependent on her father at the time of his death due to desertion and absence of independent income. The earlier judgment relied upon by the government was distinguished, as in that case the claimant had failed to establish dependency and there was no pending matrimonial litigation during the parent’s lifetime.
The High Court reiterated that while exercising writ jurisdiction, it cannot act as an appellate court or substitute its own view merely because another view is possible. Since there was no illegality or perversity in the Tribunal’s order, the writ petition was dismissed without any order as to costs.
This judgment reinforces that pension laws are welfare-oriented and must be applied in a practical and humane manner. Technical rigidity cannot defeat legitimate claims when factual dependency is clearly established and supported by legal records.
Explanatory Table: Laws & Sections Involved
| Law / Provision | Purpose | Court’s Brief Interpretation |
| Article 226/227, Constitution of India | Judicial review of tribunal orders | High Court will not interfere unless there is illegality or perversity |
| Rule 54, CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 | Governs grant of family pension | Family pension is meant for dependent family members |
| DoPT OM dated 19.07.2017 | Family pension to divorced daughter | Divorce decree can be after parent’s death if proceedings started during lifetime |
| Dependency Principle | Factual dependency test | Actual dependency matters more than technical dates |
Case Summary
- Case Title: Union of India & Ors. vs. Mita Saha Karmakar, WP.CT 36 of 2025
- Court: High Court at Calcutta, Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction (Appellate Side)
- Bench:
- Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul
- Hon’ble Justice Partha Sarathi Sen
- Judgment Date: 09 December 2025
- Counsels:
- For Petitioners: Mr. D.N. Ray, Senior Advocate, Ms. Moumita Mondal, Advocate
- For Respondent: Mr. Asim Kr. Niyogi, Advocate Mr. Vaskar Pal, Advocate
Key Takeaways
- Dependency is the core test — not gender, sympathy, or post-death paperwork.
- Divorce proceedings timing matters — if initiated during the parent’s lifetime, benefits survive.
- State authorities cannot weaponize technical delays to deny lifetime pension liabilities.
- Family pension is turning into a perpetual entitlement, even when men face relentless maintenance pressure.
- No reciprocal relief for dependent sons or aging fathers — gender neutrality remains missing in pension law..
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.