The Tripura High Court has held that a divorced daughter cannot be denied family pension merely on the ground that she was not divorced on the date of her pensioner-father's death.

The Court remarked that the requirement that a daughter must have been divorced during the lifetime of the pensioner was not contained in the applicable pension rules.

The Court also criticised the Agartala Municipal Corporation for taking an unfair stand against the appellant, observing that it was difficult to believe that a woman would make false pleas in divorce proceedings merely to claim a paltry family pension.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Biswajit Palit observed that: “It is difficult to believe that women in India, for the sake of paltry Family Pension would go to the extent of making false pleas in their divorce application and would break up their marriage. Also her husband has also agreed to her plea and had not disputed the same. It is unfortunate that such an unfair stand has been taken by the Agartala Municipal Corporation.”

Background:

The appellant, Ujjwala Rani Paul, was the daughter of an employee of the Agartala Municipal Corporation who had superannuated in 2004 and died on December 2, 2018. His wife had predeceased him. At the time of her father's death, the appellant was married. She subsequently obtained a divorce by mutual consent on October 4, 2021, and thereafter applied for family pension on February 23, 2022.

The Agartala Municipal Corporation rejected her claim, stating that the Finance Department's 2018 memorandum extending family pension benefits to divorced daughters had not been adopted by the Corporation. Aggrieved, she approached the Tripura High Court. A Single Judge dismissed her petition, holding that she was not divorced when her father died. She therefore preferred the present writ appeal.

The Division Bench held that the Single Judge had erred in reading an additional condition into Rule 8 of the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pension) Rules, 2017, namely, that a daughter must have been divorced during the lifetime of the pensioner. The Court observed that no such requirement was prescribed under the applicable rules.

The Bench further noted that the Agartala Municipal Corporation had itself admitted that a legally divorced daughter could claim family pension, subject to the prescribed income limit. It rejected the Corporation's contention that the 2018 Finance Department memorandum had not been adopted, finding the claim to be “blatantly false and contrary to record.”

The Court also considered the appellant's dependency on her father and noted that the Government of India's Office Memorandum dated July 19, 2017 specifically contemplated cases where divorce proceedings were initiated during the pensioner's lifetime but the divorce took place after his death. In such circumstances, family pension could commence from the date of divorce, subject to fulfilment of the other conditions.

Relying on the welfare-oriented nature of family pension provisions, the Bench held that the appellant could not be denied the benefit merely because her divorce occurred after her father's death. It therefore allowed the appeal, set aside the Single Judge's order and directed the Corporation to grant family pension from October 4, 2021, along with arrears and 6% annual interest.

Case Name: Ujjwala Rani v/s Agartala Municipal Corporation

Case No.: W.A. No.30 of 2025

Date of Decision: 18.08.2026

Click Here To Read/Download Order