JUDGMENT : S.R. BRAHMBHATT, J. 1. Heard learned counsels appearing for the parties. In both these petitions there is common question of law as to whether the divorced daughter for receiving the benefit of family pension is required to produce divorce decree duly authenticated or issued by the competent Court of law and be denied the said benefit in case if she only produces the customary divorce deed for seeking the benefit of family pension. Therefore, both the matters were listed together and are being heard and disposed of by the common judgment and order. 2. The petitioner - western railway, Union of India, has approached this Court by way of these petitions for assailing the judgment and order dated 14.12.2018 rendered in O.A. No.331 of 2017 and judgment and order dated 11.07.2017 rendered in O.A. No.319 of 2017, where under the present petitioner was directed to consider and grant the family pension to the applicant of the Original Applications on the basis of the reasoning and facts recorded there under. 3. The facts which are slightly different in both the petitions and judgment in fact affect the framing of the question of law deserve to be set out separately for ready reference as under: Facts of Special Civil Application No.324 of 2018 (A) The original applicant in Original Application had to move the said Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal for seeking family pension as she was entitled to receive the same under Rule 75 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, as explained time and again by the authorities especially Government of India in respect of pari-materia provision of Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 in respect of the family pension. (B) The applicant in Original Application No.319 of 2017 was residing with her mother on account of her customary divorce since December 1981 and her mother was a family pensioner, as the father died in 09.09.2006. The mother i.e. recipient of the family pension said to have communicated her written request to the authorities under her letter dated 08.09.2007 so as to incorporate the factum of her daughter's customary divorce and her residing with the family pensioner mother. The mother i.e. recipient of the family pension said to have communicated her written request to the authorities under her letter dated 08.09.2007 so as to incorporate the factum of her daughter's customary divorce and her residing with the family pensioner mother. Unfortunately, the said communication remain unheeded though before this Court the respondent in the Original Application and the present petitioners have taken the stand that said communication of 2007 had not been received by the concerned authority and it is contended by the counsel for the original applicant that the said stand is not taken before the Tribunal where the document was produced. (C) The family pension recipient mother died on 25.10.2011 and on account of her demise the sole surviver in the family i.e. the original applicant – divorced daughter became eligible to receive family pension in her own steed. The original applicant approached the authority by making an application on 27.08.2012 indicating therein that the family recipient mother has died and she being divorced daughter residing with family pension recipient and indicating the dissolution of marriage, was thus entitled to receive family pension as per the provision of Rule 75 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules. The said application came to be rejected by the authorities on 19.12.2012 and she was called upon to produce a valid divorce decree from the competent Court. The factum of divorce i.e. customary divorce as put forward by the original applicant remain in disputed. (D) The gentleman with whom she had married and taken customary divorce died on 09.07.2013. As the original applicant was under distress, had to approach once again the authority with whatever resources or provision available to her for sustaining herself by taking a shelter under the provision, which enures in favour of the widowed daughter of family pensioner, as though her customary divorce deed was not accepted, but after the demise of the person whom she had married, she approached the authority under the solemn hope that at least on this count she would not be denied the benefit of family pension now, as the gentleman has died and she is to be treated as widow, in case, if her customary divorce was was supported by the subsequent decree of the Court indicating dissolution of marriage. (E) The said request of the original applicant was declined vide order dated 21.11.2016 on the ground that she failed in the first instance to produce any dissolution of marriage decree from the competent Court and the death of the gentleman whom she had married was after the death of the recipient of the family pensioner mother holding out to her the said technical provision, the authority declined grant of family pension to the applicant which provided cause of action to the applicant to approach by way of Original Application No.319 of 2017, which came to be allowed on account of the reasons stated there under. The operative part thereof read as under: “Para-16:- The claim of the applicant in Ramsingh Laljibhai Dabhi (supra) for entering the name of her widow daughter at Section III of the PPO was rejected by the Railway authorities on the ground that she did not produce an authenticated decree of divorce from a competent court of jurisdiction. A perusal of the impugned letter dated 21.11.2016, vide Annexure A/1, makes it clear that the respondents have denied the family pension to the applicant as a divorced daughter on the ground that she did not produce a decree of divorce from a competent court of jurisdiction. In other words, the stand of the respondents in Ramjibhai Laljibhai Dabhi (supra) and in the case on hand to deny the benefit of family pension to a divorced daughter is one and the same. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the stand of the respondents in the impugned letter dated 21.11.2016 that “In your case, the divorce decree issued from Court of Law is not submitted from your end, to process your case as a divorcee daughter” is not sustainable in law. Consequently, the respondents are directed to take necessary steps to consider the case of the applicant for sanctioning family pension as soon as possible, but, not later than 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if she fulfills all the other criteria prescribed. 17. It is made clear that the Railway authorities are at their liberty to get the matter of dissolution of marriage between herself and Diner Pransukhlal Nayak confirmed, through their own sources, if in their opinion, it is necessary. 17. It is made clear that the Railway authorities are at their liberty to get the matter of dissolution of marriage between herself and Diner Pransukhlal Nayak confirmed, through their own sources, if in their opinion, it is necessary. It is further made clear that if the orders of this Tribunal in Ramjibhai Laljibhai Dabhi (supra) is stayed by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat as submitted by Ms. Roopal R.Patel, then the findings and directions given herein is subject to the outcome of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in Ramjibhai Laljibhai Dabhi (supra).” Facts of Special Civil Application No.4792 of 2019 The original applicant there under was constrained to move the said application on the following facts: (A) The father of the applicant, who happen to be recipient of pensioner as he was superannuated regularly died on 13.12.2012 and she being divorced daughter of the said pensioner entitled to receive family pension under Rule 75 Railway Services (Pension) Rules. (B) The applicant there under in fact had obtained customary divorce after she had filed Hindu Marriage Petition being Hindu Marriage Petition No.105/2007 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mehsana. The said divorce petition came to be withdrawn on account of the fact that the parties had mutually agreed to dissolve their marriage as per the customs prevalent in the community and accordingly the divorce deed of 18.07.2009 was placed on record and in light thereof the Hindu Marriage Petition No.105/2007 was sought to be withdrawn which permission was duly granted acknowledging the fact that the parties have taken customary divorce. (C) The said customary divorce deed was not viewed to be sufficient, one more petition being Hindu Marriage Petition No.131/2013 came to be filed which formally recognized the divorce between the parties. On demise of the pensioner, father of the applicant, she approached the authority for seeking family pension which came to be declined on the ground that the divorce decree rendered by the competent Court was subsequent to the demise of the pensioner and as she was not falling under Rule 75 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules as explained by Office Memorandum dated 11th September, 2013, the applicant approached the Tribunal by way of O.A. No.331/2017, which came to be allowed by the Tribunal. The operative part thereof, read as under: “Para:13:- As observed by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) in aforesaid case of Smt. Usha Eknath Patil Clause 19 (b), mentioned supra, includes not only a widowed or divorced daughter but also unmarried daughter. The said clause also entitles adopted son or daughter to family pension. Clause therefore is wide and looks after welfare of family of deceased employee. Clauses 4 and 5 of office memorandum dated 11.09.2013 show the intention of Railways not to leave a destitute woman without any means of livelihood. This object and intention cannot be defeated in present facts of instant case of applicant also, applicant is divorced daughter of the deceased employee of the respondents and was living with her deceased father. 14. In view of factual and legal scenario, discussed above impugned orders dated 04.06.2015, 10.03.2016 & 02.03.2017 (Annexures A-1, A-2 & A-3) are quashed and respondents are directed to extend benefit of family pension to the applicant. They are directed to pass fresh order for grant of family pension to the applicant and this exercise shall be completed within two months from the date of receipt of this order.” (D) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied therewith, the respondent therein have approached this Court by way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents as well as original applicants invited Court's attention to the fact that the divorce decree by the competent Court rendered on 10.04.2015 was taking its effect from the date though in the body of the decree and order it is clearly mentioned that there was no cohabitation between the parties and the parties were separately residing since 10 years. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners invited Court's attention to the following provisions of Office Memorandum dated 11.09.2013 in support of her contention that Rule 75 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules read with Office Memorandum would clearly indicate that the authorities were justified in declining the family pension to the applicants in Original Application and the Tribunal unfortunately could not appreciate this aspect and therefore the direction issued by the Tribunal in the orders impugned in these petitions deserve to be quashed and set aside. The Office Memorandum dated 11.09.2013 read as under: “Office Memorandum “Provision for grant of family pension to a widowed/divorced daughter beyond the age of 25 years has been made vide OM dated 30.08.2004. This provision has been included in (iii) of sub-rule 54(6) of the CCS (Pension), Rules, 1972. For settlement of old cases, it was clarified, vide OM dated 28.04.2011, that the family pension may be granted to eligible widowed/divorced daughters with effect from 30.08.2004, in case the death of the Govt. Servant/pensioner occurred before this date. 2. This Department has been receiving communications from various Ministries Department seeking clarification regarding eligibility of a daughter who became widowed/divorced after the death of the employee/pensioner. 3. As intended in Rule 54(8) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the turn of unmarried children below 25 years of age comes after the death or remarriage of their mother/father, i.e. the pensioner and his/her spouse. Thereafter, the family pension is payable to the disabled children for life and then to unmarried/widowed/divorced daughters above the age of 25 years. 4. It is clarified that the family pension is payable to the children as they are considered to be dependent on the Government servant/pensioner or his/her spouse. A child who is not earnings equal to or more than the sum of minimum family pension and dearness relief thereon is considered to be dependent on his/her parents. Therefore, only those children who are dependent and meet other conditions of eligibility for family pension at the time of death of the Government servant or his/her spouse, whichever is later, are eligible for family pension. If two or more children are eligible for family pension at that time, family pension will be payable to each child on his/her turn provided he/she is still eligible for family pension when the turn comes. Similarly, family pension to a widowed/divorced daughter is payable provided she fulfils all eligibility conditions at the time of death/ineligibility of her parents and on the date her turn to receive family pension comes. 5. As regards opening of old cases, a daughter if eligible, as explained in the preceding paragraph, may be granted family pension with effect from 30th August, 2004. The position is illustrated through an example. Shri A, a pensioner, died in 1986. 5. As regards opening of old cases, a daughter if eligible, as explained in the preceding paragraph, may be granted family pension with effect from 30th August, 2004. The position is illustrated through an example. Shri A, a pensioner, died in 1986. He was survived by his wife Smt. B, a son Shri C and a daughter, Kumari D, the daughter being the younger. Kumari D married in 1990 and got widowed in 1996. Smt. B died in 2001. Thereafter, Shri C was getting family pension, being disabled, and died in 2003. Thereafter, the family pension was stopped as Kumari D was not eligible for it at that time. She applied for family pension on the basis of OM dated 30th August, 2004. Since she was a widow and had no independent source of income at the time of death of her mother and on the date her turn came, she may be granted for pension. The family pension will continue only till she remarries or start earning her livelihood equal to or more than the sum of minimum family pension and dearness relief thereon. 6. This is only a clarification and the entitlement of widowed/divorced daughters continue to be determined in terms of OM dated 25/30th August, 2004, read with OM dated 28.04.2011.” 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that the reliance placed upon the judgment of this Court in case of Twinkle Rameshkumar Dhameliya Vs. Superintendent in Special Civil Application No.1260 of 2005 dated 23.02.2005, was in fact rendered by the learned single Judge of this Court in respect of different facts which contain the direction against the passport issuing authority and therefore the said decision could not be of much avail to the respondents herein. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that the decision of this Court in case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Sumitra Dilubha Gohil Wd/o. Late Govindsinh Zala in Special Civil Application No.14882 of 2016 dated 19.09.2016, which is said to have been upheld by the Supreme Court, as the S.L.P. being Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.(s) 31300/2017, is rejected also would be of no avail, as the peculiar facts of the present case in both the cases would clearly indicate that the applicants in both the cases were not entitled to seek benefit of the regulations as explained by Office Memorandum, reproduced hereinabove. The subsequent Office Memorandum of 2017, to be more precise 19th July, 2017, also could not help the applicants as it talks only about the initiation of divorce proceedings in the competent Court during the life time of the recipient of the pension or the family pension and in the instant case the decree, so far as Special Civil Application No. 4792 of 2019 is concerned, was rendered pursuant to the Hindu Marriage Petition No.131/2013, which was not filed during the lifetime of the recipient of the family pension and so far as the applicant of Special Civil Application No.324 of 2018 is concerned, she never approached the competent Court for obtaining any declaration or dissolution of her marriage and therefore on both counts both the applicants could not have been granted the benefit of family pension and direction to issue the same as impugned orders contain. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that the authorities were well within the right and justified in seeking the decree of divorce by the competent Court, as the Government of India while explaining the pari-materia provision of Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules which is equivalent to Rule 75 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules clearly indicated that in what situation the authority may insist for production of the decree from the competent Court. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that the judgment rendered by the Bombay High Court and relied upon in the Original Application is also not applicable in the instant case as the facts of both the cases are different. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents invited Court's attention to the decision rendered by the learned single Judge of this Court under which it is said that the direction though was in respect of the passport authority, but it contains interpretation and factum of Hindu Marriage, as governed by the provision of Hindu marriage Act and therefore it can well be said that the said judgment cannot be said to be not applicable as contended on behalf of the petitioners. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents in the present petition further submitted that the decision of the Bombay High Court in case of Union of India Through General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai Vs. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents in the present petition further submitted that the decision of the Bombay High Court in case of Union of India Through General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai Vs. Usha Eknath Patil rendered in Writ Petition No.6884 of 2016 dated 03.04.2018 would clearly be of great help, as the Bombay High Court in paragraph no. 19 onward, observed as under: “Para-:19 – Here, fact of customary divorce is not in dispute. The competent civil Court has on 29/11/2010 in recognition of customary divorce and separate stay from 21/07/1992 dissolved marriage. Thus, fact that daughter Usha was not residing with her husband since 21/07/1992 has been accepted by competent Court. The Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application on 27/11/2015 has accepted this finding of civil Court. The petitioner – railways could not displace that finding even during review proceedings. [20] Today, our attention has been drawn to office memorandum dated 19/7/2017. This memorandum clarifies the earlier office memorandum dated 11/9/2013 mentioned supra. The office memorandum stipulates that daughter, if eligible may be granted family pension, provided she fulfils all eligibility conditions at the time of death/ineligibility of her parents. [21] There cannot be any debate about this proposition. Here, Clause 19(b), mentioned supra, includes not only a widowed or divorced daughter but also unmarried daughter. The said clause also entitles adopted son or daughter to family pension. Clause therefore is wide and looks after welfare of family of deceased employee. Clauses 4 and 5 (highlighted portion, supra) of office memorandum dated 11/09/2013 show the intention of Railways not to leave a destitute woman without any means of livelihood. This object and intention can not be defeated in present facts. [22] In present facts, though customary divorce on 21/7/1992 may not be legally recognized, facts show that from said date Usha was not residing with her husband and was therefore member of family of her deceased father. She was therefore a destitute residing with her mother Vatsala who expired on 28/12/1999. When the provision entitles unmarried or a divorced or a widowed daughter to family pension, we find that Usha is definitely covered there under. [23] We therefore do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity in the order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal. No case is made out. Writ Petition is therefore dismissed. Rule stands discharged. No costs.” 12. When the provision entitles unmarried or a divorced or a widowed daughter to family pension, we find that Usha is definitely covered there under. [23] We therefore do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity in the order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal. No case is made out. Writ Petition is therefore dismissed. Rule stands discharged. No costs.” 12. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents invited Court's attention to the judgment rendered by this Court in case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Sumitra Dilubha Gohil Wd/o. Late Govindsinh Zala (supra) with emphasis upon the following paragraphs, as Supreme Court rejected the S.L.P. in limine. Paragraphs 15, 17 and 18 of the said judgment read as under: (15) In light of the above Oms, it is stated by Ms.Amin, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, that the respondent got married on 15.03.1999 and the family pension was discontinued from 16.03.1999 and, therefore, after becoming widow on 28.03.2009, she is not eligible to receive family pension on the ground of her father being a railway servant as after marriage, the respondent becomes the dependent upon her husband and she has all the rights over the property of her husband. (17) Considering the Office Memorandum (O.M.) dated 11.09.2013 issued by the Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare (DOP & PW), more particularly clarification made in Paragraph No.5 and even the example given in Paragraph No.5, the learned Tribunal has directed to give family pension to the respondent herein, the original applicant, from the date she became widow as she was not in a position to maintain herself and her children. After examining the said Paragraph No.5 and example stated therein, we are of the view that the case of the respondent is covered by O.M. Dated 11.09.2013. After examining the said Paragraph No.5 and example stated therein, we are of the view that the case of the respondent is covered by O.M. Dated 11.09.2013. (18) Now so far as the contention on behalf of the petitioners that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Kolkata High Court is concerned, at the outset it is required to be noted that the present order is on merits and considering O.M. Dated 11.09.2013, we have taken a decision on merits and not considering the order passed by the Hon’ble Kolkata High Court, we are not entering into larger question : “whether the learned Tribunal is justified in relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court or not, irrespective of decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court? 13. Learned counsel for the respondents invited Court's attention to the notification dated 19.07.2017 to indicate that even divorce proceedings pending when the recipient of the pension dies would be rendering the dependent daughter entitle for receiving the pension on attaining the status of divorcee, as the real test is date of death of the pensioner. 14. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the orders impugned. The moot questions need for consideration is, as we have set out hereinabove as to whether the authorities can be said to have justification for insisting upon the divorce decree rendered by the competent Court only for granting the family pension to the divorced daughter in case, if she is fulfilling the criteria of being divorced daughter of the recipient of the pensioner/family pensioner. 15. The provision of Rule 75 of the Family Pension Rules, in fact, is a benevolent piece of subordinate legislation and therefore it needs to be governed by the principles which required to be pressed into service for extending the benefit of the family pension to those who are in need thereof, as it is intended to benefit those family members who needs support. Bearing this proposition of law in mind, if one examines Rule 75 which is also in pari-materia with Rule 54 of the said Rules, would indicate that the family pension is available to the divorced daughter. The Rule does not recognized any further or other requirement to be eligible for receiving the family pension. Bearing this proposition of law in mind, if one examines Rule 75 which is also in pari-materia with Rule 54 of the said Rules, would indicate that the family pension is available to the divorced daughter. The Rule does not recognized any further or other requirement to be eligible for receiving the family pension. The device in the form of guideline developed by the authorities and incorporated in Office Memorandum are, therefore, to be viewed as only facilitating tools to assess gauge and examine the cases of the divorced daughter to receive family pension on the basis of the eligibility. When the factum of customary divorce is well recognized by the provision of the Hindu Marriage Act with special emphasis upon Section 29(2), then perhaps rightly the author of Rule 54 and/or Rule 75 have not thought it fit to qualify the word “divorced daughter” by making it conditional that the divorce has to be declared by the competent Court, else it would perhaps amounted to improve upon the provision of Hindu Marriage Act, which unequivocally recognizes the customary divorce as a valid divorce provided the same is permissible under the community and the circumstances. The question, therefore, arises as to whether the respondents in the instant case, were having any justification to insist upon the divorce decree from the competent Court and were they justified in declining to act upon the customary divorce factum which have remain unchallenged before the authority and which have been recorded by the Tribunal in its orders at length and elaborately. Section 29(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, read as under: “Section 29(2):- Nothing contained in this Act shall be deemed to affect any right recognized by custom or conferred by any special enactment to obtain the dissolution of a Hindu marriage, whether solemnized before or after the commencement of this Act.” 16. In other words, it can well be said that when the factum of customary divorce in both the cases have not been challenged by the authorities. Their insistence for divorce decree only from the competent Court indicating valid dissolution of marriage would not be justified. In other words, it can well be said that when the factum of customary divorce in both the cases have not been challenged by the authorities. Their insistence for divorce decree only from the competent Court indicating valid dissolution of marriage would not be justified. The Court hasten to add here that this proposition on the valid premise that there exists no dispute qua customary divorce, in other words, the factum of applicants having a valid customary divorce deed when not under challenge and has accepted, then its mere authentication in the from of dissolution of marriage by the decree of the competent Court, in our view, would be improving the provision of the Hindu Marriage Act without any authority of law and the benefit, therefore, which are enuring under Rule 54 and Rule 75 when it is not qualified in any other manner would have to be accorded to the divorced daughter also. 17. As Bombay High Court has observed rightly in its judgment the important factor is the family in which the daughter is residing when the pensioner/recipient of the family pension dies. When the said factum has not been disputed in both the cases and when it is clearly recorded by the Tribunal as a fact that both the applicants were residing with the pensioner/recipient of the family pension, then the insistence for dissolution of marriage by the competent Court only by way of decree, in our view, was not justified. 18. The Tribunal's orders, therefore, in our view, cannot be said to be in any way incorrect and/or required to be interfered with. As a result thereof, the petitions failed and they are, therefore, dismissed. Rule in Special Civil Application No.324 of 2018 and notice in Special Civil Application No.4792 of 2019 are discharged. Interim relief, if any, stand vacated. 19. The petitioners are directed to see to it that the family pensions are accorded to the respondents from the date when they are entitled as per Rule 75 of the Rules and the payment be made on that basis as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.