Dependency at the Time of Pensioner’s Death Crucial, Mere Divorce Insufficient for Pension Claim: Calcutta High Court

In a significant judgment, the High Court at Calcutta has set aside the Tribunal’s order directing the grant of family pension to Smt. Sandhya Ghosh, a divorced daughter of a deceased Railway servant. The bench, comprising Justices Tapabrata Chakraborty and Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, emphasized that dependency at the time of the pensioner’s death is a critical factor, and mere divorce after the pensioner’s demise does not automatically entitle a daughter to a family pension.

The case revolved around Sandhya Ghosh, whose father, Haripada Ghosh, a retired Railway employee, passed away on March 18, 2005. Sandhya had been driven out of her matrimonial home in June 2003 and claimed to be dependent on her father until his death. She obtained an ex parte divorce decree on September 28, 2010. Sandhya applied for a family pension on July 9, 2012, which was denied by the Railway authorities. The Tribunal had earlier directed the authorities to reconsider her application based on a 2013 Office Memorandum (OM) and a precedent set in the case of Mamata Ghosh, which the High Court has now overturned.

The court scrutinized the aspect of dependency, noting that Sandhya was not dependent on her father at the time of his death, a crucial requirement for entitlement to a family pension. The bench pointed out that Sandhya had married in 1998 and returned to her paternal home only in 2003, without any formal steps taken against her husband during this period.

“The respondent had failed to establish that she was dependent upon her father at the time of his demise,” the judgment stated.

The petitioners argued that the OM dated September 11, 2013, and subsequent circulars were not applicable to Sandhya’s case as her divorce occurred post her father’s death. The High Court agreed, emphasizing that each case must be assessed on its individual merits, particularly the dependency status at the time of the pensioner’s death.

Distinguishing the present case from Mamata Ghosh’s, the court highlighted the differences in the factual matrix, especially regarding the timing and nature of dependency. The court clarified that precedents in family pension cases are not universally applicable without factual similarity.

“The observations in the ex parte decree cannot be construed to be sacrosanct,” the bench remarked, underscoring the need for a thorough assessment.

The court extensively discussed the principles surrounding the grant of family pensions. It reiterated that the primary objective of family pensions is to provide financial support to dependent family members of the deceased employee. The lack of evidence demonstrating Sandhya’s dependency on her father at the time of his death was a pivotal factor in denying her claim.

Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty observed, “The object towards grant of such family pension is to give pecuniary support to a dependant family member of the deceased. The respondent had failed to establish that she was dependent upon her father, at the time of his demise.”

The High Court’s decision to set aside the Tribunal’s order underscores the judiciary’s adherence to the principles governing family pensions, particularly the aspect of dependency. This judgment clarifies that mere divorce after the death of the pensioner does not suffice for entitlement to a family pension. The ruling is expected to influence future cases by reinforcing the criteria for assessing dependency in family pension claims.

Date of Decision: June 25, 2024