Tripura High Court Denies Family Pension to Daughter Who Divorced After Father's Death

The Tripura High Court has dismissed a petition by a woman who was denied family pension after her father's death, ruling that eligibility for family pension must exist at the time of the pensioner's death.

The case involves Smt Paul, whose father worked for the Agartala Municipal Corporation and retired on October 1, 2004. He received pension until his death on December 2, 2018. His wife had died much earlier.

Just a few days after marriage, Smt Paul's husband went missing and was never seen again. She moved back in with her father and stayed there for over 40 years. It wasn't until after her father passed away that she decided to file for divorce in Family Court, Agartala, which she officially got on October 4, 2021.

After her father's death, she applied for his family pension as per Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pension) Rules, 2017 on February 23, 2022. She sent reminders and a legal notice regarding this, but the Municipal Authority rejected her request on October 4, 2024, taking the plea that a state government notification dated March 23, 2018, amended provision of pension rules which entitled a divorced daughter to get pension, but the Municipal Authority hadn't adopted this amendment.

She then filed a case in the Tripura High Court. Senior Advocate Mr P. Roy Barman and Advocate Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee represented her in the high court. Advocate Arijit Bhaumik represented the State of Tripura and others.

The case was heard on February 12, 2026 and the judgement was given on April 1, 2026.

During the hearing, Mr. Roy Barman argued that in the Revised Pension Rules, 2017, as applicable to the employees of the Agartala Municipal Corporation, there is no restriction which says that to get family pension, the divorce shall have to take place during the lifetime of the original pensioner or the spouse, or that at least such petition shall have to be filed when the original pensioner was alive.

He relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in case of All Manipur Pensioners Association vs. State of Manipur & Ors., AIR 2019 SC 3338, which ruled that there cannot be two classes in a homogeneous group and such differentiation created by the government was arbitrary.

Mr. A. Bhaumik, representing the state of Tripura and the Municipal Corporation, argued that for getting family pension, the divorced daughter should be a family member of the original pensioner and be dependent on him/her and divorce proceedings should start at least when the original pensioner was alive.

He also referenced a ruling from a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Mita Saha Karmakar, WP.CT 36 of 2025, decided on December 9, 2025.

The High Court examined Rule 8 of the Revised Pension Rules, 2017, which makes provision for payment of family pension to the unmarried/widow daughter/divorced/disabled child. The court said that on plain reading of the said clause, it appears that the divorced daughter of the original pensioner is entitled to get family pension on his or his spouse's death.

However, the court held that the condition precedent for entitlement to family pension is that the daughter should be divorced when the original pensioner died as the right to receive such pension accrues on the death of the original pensioner or on the death of his/her spouse who was receiving the pension.

The court noted that there are cases where a divorce petition, though filed during the lifetime of the original pensioner or of his/her spouse, could not be disposed of by granting a decree of divorce by the concerned court before the death of the concerned parent. The Government of India, by Office Memos dated September 11, 2013 and July 19, 2017, extended the benefit to these cases declaring them to be entitled to the family pension.

In the case at hand, the high court said that at the time of her father's death, 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 Tripura High Court reiterated that at the time of the death of her father, her status was not of a divorced daughter rather of a married daughter separated from her husband and dependent on her father. The Revised Pension Rules, 2017 does not cover the petitioner's case to extend the benefit of family pension in her favour.

The court said that under Article 226, they cannot rewrite a Rule by stretch of interpretation. This also cannot be treated as a case of discrimination amongst one homogenous class of people as only some specified categories of married daughters are entitled to get the benefit of family pension and not all.

The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.