The High Court of Tripura has ruled that a daughter who obtains a decree of divorce after the death of her pensioner parent is not eligible for family pension under the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pension) Rules, 2017. Justice S. Datta Purkayastha held that the right to receive such pension accrues at the time of the death of the pensioner or their spouse, and the claimant must satisfy the eligibility criteria—specifically being a “divorcee daughter”—on that date.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Ujjala Rani Paul, is the daughter of late Rash Bihari Paul, a former laborer at the Agartala Municipal Corporation (AMC) who retired in 2004 and passed away on December 2, 2018. While the petitioner claimed she had been living at her father’s house for over 40 years after her husband went missing shortly after their marriage, her formal marital bond was only legally dissolved via a compromise decree of divorce on October 4, 2021—nearly three years after her father’s death.
Following the divorce, the petitioner applied for a family pension on February 23, 2022. The Agartala Municipal Corporation rejected her prayer on October 4, 2024, leading to the present writ petition. The AMC contended that at the time of the pensioner’s death, the petitioner was not a “divorcee daughter” and thus did not meet the eligibility criteria.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Submissions: Senior Advocate P. Roy Barman, representing the petitioner, argued that although the formal decree was passed in 2021, the petitioner was factually dependent on her father for decades. He contended that the Revised Pension Rules, 2017, do not explicitly state that the divorce must occur during the lifetime of the pensioner. He further argued that denying the pension would create an arbitrary classification within a homogeneous group of pensioners, citing the Supreme Court decision in All Manipur Pensioners Association vs. State of Manipur & Ors. (2019).
Respondents’ Submissions: Advocate Arijit Bhaumik, appearing for the AMC, argued that eligibility for family pension must be determined on the date of the pensioner’s death. He submitted that on the date Rash Bihari Paul died, the petitioner’s status was that of a “married daughter” and not a “divorcee.” He relied on Central Government Office Memorandums (OMs) from 2013 and 2017, which clarify that family pension is only extended to daughters whose divorce proceedings were at least initiated during the lifetime of the parents. He also cited the Calcutta High Court’s decision in Union of India & Ors. vs. Mita Saha Karmakar (2025) to support this stance.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court focused its analysis on Rule 8 of the Revised Pension Rules, 2017, which provides for family pension to “unmarried/widow daughter/divorcee/disabled child.”
The Court observed:
“The condition precedent for entitlement to family pension is that the daughter should be a divorced daughter when the original pensioner died as the right to receive such pension accrues on the death of the original pension or on the death of his/her spouse who was receiving the pension.”
Justice Purkayastha noted that while the Government of India has extended benefits to cases where divorce proceedings were initiated before the parent’s death but concluded after, the petitioner’s case did not even meet this relaxed standard, as she filed for divorce only in 2021.
Regarding her status at the time of her father’s death, the Court stated:
“…at that time, her status was of a ‘married daughter separated from her husband’ and not a divorced daughter. The Rules do not permit grant of family pension to said category of married daughters.”
The Court also addressed the limits of judicial intervention in policy matters, citing the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal (1992):
“It is not the duty of the court either to enlarge the scope of the legislation or the intention of the legislature when the language of the provision is plain and unambiguous. The court cannot rewrite, recast or reframe the legislation for the very good reason that it has no power to legislate.”
The Decision
The Court concluded that the petitioner could not be treated as a victim of discrimination, as the law only specifies certain categories of married daughters (widowed or divorced) for the benefit. Finding no merit in the petition, the Court dismissed the case.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Smt. Ujjala Rani Paul vs. Agartala Municipal Corporation & Ors.
- Case No.: WP(C) 132 OF 2025
- Bench: Justice S. Datta Purkayastha
- Date: April 1, 2026
