Agartala: The Tripura High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a woman seeking family pension of her deceased father, ruling that she was not eligible under the applicable provisions as she was not a “divorced daughter” at the time of his death.
The petitioner had approached the court after her claim for family pension was rejected by the Agartala Municipal Corporation. Her father, Rash Bihari Paul, a retired labourer of the Corporation, had passed away on December 2, 2018. Her mother had predeceased him. Following his death, the petitioner later obtained a divorce decree from a family court on October 4, 2021, and subsequently applied for family pension in February 2022.
However, the Municipal Authority rejected her application in October 2024, stating that the amended provisions allowing divorced daughters to receive family pension had not been adopted by the Corporation. Challenging this decision, the petitioner moved the High Court.
During the hearing, the petitioner argued that she had been dependent on her father for many years after separating from her husband. She further contended that the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pension) Rules, 2017 do not explicitly require that the divorce must take place during the lifetime of the pensioner.
On the other hand, the respondents maintained that eligibility for family pension is determined based on the claimant’s status at the time of the pensioner’s death. They pointed out that the petitioner was legally married at the time of her father’s demise in 2018, and divorce proceedings were initiated only in 2021, well after his death.
The single bench of Justice S Datta Purkayastha examined the matter and framed the key question as whether a daughter who becomes divorced after the death of the pensioner can claim family pension under the 2017 Rules.
Referring to Rule 8 of the Revised Pension Rules, the court observed that family pension is admissible to a divorced daughter subject to specific conditions, and that such entitlement crystallises at the time of the pensioner’s death.
The court held that the petitioner’s status at the relevant time was that of a married daughter living separately, which does not fall within the categories recognised under the rules.
Emphasising the limits of judicial interpretation, the court noted that it cannot expand or modify statutory provisions. Citing Supreme Court precedent, it reiterated that courts cannot add words to a statute or extend benefits beyond its clear language.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner did not meet the eligibility criteria. No order as to costs was passed.
