Smt.S.K.Ameerun vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's submission regarding the O.M. dated 11.09.2013 being the sole basis for her eligibility was unfounded. The Court clarified that provisions for family pension to widowed daughters beyond 25 years existed earlier, with O.M. dated 30.08.2004 and subsequent clarifications in O.M. dated 28.04.2011 and O.M. dated 11.09.2013. The latter O.M. merely clarified that eligibility would be from the date of the respective orders, irrespective of the pensioner's death date. The Court found that if the petitioner was truly dependent on her mother after her marriage, she could have applied in 2008 itself upon her mother's death. Given her marriage in 2000 and widowhood in 2012, claiming dependency on her mother who died in 2008 was unsustainable. The Court found no material to contradict the concurrent findings of the department and the CAT that the petitioner was not dependent on her parents. Consequently, the Court found no illegality in the Tribunal's order.

Facts

The petitioner, the widowed daughter of a deceased Superintendent, Central Excise, filed a writ petition challenging an order by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The CAT had dismissed her Original Application (O.A.) seeking family pension. The petitioner's father died in 1994, and her mother, who was receiving family pension, died in 2008. The petitioner was married in 2000 and her husband died in 2012. She applied for family pension in 2013, but her application was rejected by the respondent No.2, who held she was not dependent on her parents. The CAT upheld this finding. The petitioner argued that she became eligible for family pension as a widowed daughter following an Office Memo (O.M.) dated 11.09.2013 and that she was dependent on her mother even after marriage.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, as a widowed daughter, is eligible for family pension, considering the relevant Office Memos (O.M.s) and the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, and whether her application filed in 2013 is maintainable. (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on O.M. dated 11.09.2013, O.M. dated 30.08.2004, O.M. dated 28.04.2011, and Rule 54(6)(iii) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972). 2. Whether the petitioner was dependent on her deceased father and subsequently on her mother, even after her marriage, to be eligible for family pension. (Question of fact, turning on the interpretation of dependency). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that prior to O.M. dated 11.09.2013, widowed daughters were not eligible for family pension, but this O.M. made them eligible, justifying her 2013 application. She further argued that she remained dependent on her mother even after her marriage and during her mother's lifetime. Respondents' arguments: The respondents supported the CAT's judgment, arguing that the petitioner was not dependent and therefore not entitled to family pension.