ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner for pensionary benefits as her father-Late Dewa Oraon (hereinafter to be referred as “the deceased serviceman”) got superannuated from the post of ‘Hawaldar’ from the Bihar Regiment and subsequently died on 06.10.2020 whereas prior to that, her mother had already died on 10.08.2019. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the deceased serviceman joined army (Bihar Regiment Unit) on 31.05.1959 having Service No. 4236711N and superannuated from the post of ‘Hawaldar’ on 25.01.1980. He subsequently died on 06.10.2020. Prior to death of the petitioner’s father, her mother had already died on 10.08.2019. The petitioner being unmarried and unemployed daughter of the deceased serviceman submitted application for family pension on 25.01.2021 through “Zila Sainik Kalyan Karyalaya”, Ranchi (respondent no. 3) before the Record Officer, Records the Bihar Regiment, Danapur Cant, Patna (respondent no. 2). The petitioner’s application was forwarded by the respondent no. 3 vide letter no. 250 dated 26.02.2021 to the respondent no. 2 for necessary action. Thereafter, the respondent no. 2 asked the respondent no. 3 to conduct an inquiry regarding the petitioner’s claim as her date of birth was 10.10.1998 and at the time of her birth, the age of her mother was 53 years which was not possible in normal condition. Subsequently, an enquiry was conducted by the respondent no.3 who, vide letter dated 15.03.2022, sought a certificate from the Civil Surgeon, Sadar Hospital, Ranchi wherein a query was made as to whether a 53 years old lady could give birth to a child. Pursuant to the said letter, the Deputy Superintendent, Sadar Hospital, Ranchi, vide letter no. 583 dated 08.04.2022 informed the respondent no. 3 that a healthy female can give birth to a child even at the age of 53 years. The respondent no. 3 forwarded the said report to the respondent no. 2 and requested to look into the matter as well as to issue necessary instruction to the concerned official to intervene in the said matter so as to alleviate financial hardship being faced by the petitioner. However, not finding the case of the petitioner to be genuine, her claim was rejected by the respondent no. 2 on 28.06.2022 and a report regarding the same was sent to the respondent no. However, not finding the case of the petitioner to be genuine, her claim was rejected by the respondent no. 2 on 28.06.2022 and a report regarding the same was sent to the respondent no. 3 stating that a common statement issued by a hospital cannot be taken as a proof of birth of a child to 53 years old lady. It was also stated that since the birth of all the children was correctly notified by the parents during their lifetime, there was no reason for leaving a child’s birth unpublished. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus submits that the rejection of the petitioner’s claim by the respondent no. 2 on extraneous ground being arbitrary and illegal is liable to be set aside. 3. On the contrary, Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned C.G.C. appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that the deceased serviceman (the petitioner’s father) was discharged from service with effect from 25.01.1980 at his own request on extreme compassionate ground and at the time of discharge, he was paid all his terminal benefits. It is further submitted that pension was granted to the deceased serviceman vide Controller of Defence Account (Pension), Allahabad Pension Payment Order No. S/C/2612/80 and the name of his wife-Hira Devi was added vide P.P.O. No. S/JN/63265/90 to get family pension in the event of death of her husband. As per service documents of the deceased serviceman, he was married to Hira Devi after his enrolment in Army. Subsequently, Hira Devi- wife of the deceased serviceman, died on 10.08.2019 and later on the deceased serviceman also died on 06.10.2020. 4. It is also submitted that the deceased serviceman had never intimated regarding birth of the petitioner during his life time and after his death, the petitioner has sought family pension claiming herself to be his daughter. Since the petitioner’s name was not found in the service document of her deceased father, she was not considered for grant of family pension. The deceased serviceman never disclosed the name of the petitioner even after 22 years of her birth and therefore the same creates doubt on the petitioner’s claim. 5. Since the petitioner’s name was not found in the service document of her deceased father, she was not considered for grant of family pension. The deceased serviceman never disclosed the name of the petitioner even after 22 years of her birth and therefore the same creates doubt on the petitioner’s claim. 5. Learned C.G.C. further submits that ordinarily, family pension to unmarried daughters above 25 years of age, widowed/divorced daughters, is payable only after the other eligible children below the age of 25 years cease to be eligible to receive family pension and there is no disabled child to receive family pension. The deceased serviceman had published the names of only two children namely Bishwa Nath Oraon (son) and Basanti Kumari (daughter) in his service book and the petitioner’s name was not mentioned in the Kindered Roll (a document specifying details about employees, their children and other family members). Hence, the case of the petitioner couldn’t be processed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioner is seeking family pension claiming to be the unmarried daughter of the deceased serviceman. 7. The respondents have denied the claim of the petitioner primarily on the ground that though the birth of all children was notified by the deceased serviceman in his service documents during his life time, the name of the petitioner was not published in the same and as such the case of the petitioner did not appear to be genuine. 8. To appreciate the contentions of learned counsel for the parties, I have perused letter no. A/20105/MP 8 (I of R) (a) dated 16.05.2008 (Annexure-J to the counter affidavit dated 16.06.2023 filed on behalf of the respondent-Union of India) issued by the Integrated Headquarters of Ministry of Defence (Army) concerning the matter of publication of NE Series Part-II Orders regarding marriage, birth of children and adoption after the death of serving personnel below officer rank (PBOR)/ex-servicemen. A/20105/MP 8 (I of R) (a) dated 16.05.2008 (Annexure-J to the counter affidavit dated 16.06.2023 filed on behalf of the respondent-Union of India) issued by the Integrated Headquarters of Ministry of Defence (Army) concerning the matter of publication of NE Series Part-II Orders regarding marriage, birth of children and adoption after the death of serving personnel below officer rank (PBOR)/ex-servicemen. The said letter reads as under:- (i) The difficulties being faced by widows and their children were deliberated upon and it has been decided that the occurrences regarding marriage, birth of child, death of spouse/child and adoption of child will be accepted and published in NE series of part II Orders by Record offices after the death of serving PBOR and ex-servicemen on request from Widows/NOKs/Children with the requisite supported documents duly verified by the concerned Zila Sainik Boards. (ii) Any certificate of proof produced by Widow/NOK/Children, if found to be false at any stage, would render the concerned occurrence null and void and necessary action will be initiated against the defaulters. It is therefore, of paramount importance that the Record Offices satisfy themselves thoroughly on the genuineness of documents produced by the Widow/NOKs/Children before accepting for publication of occurrences. It may be noted that all requests from Widow/NOKs/Children must be routed through concerned Zila Sainik Board and duly countersigned. 9. It would thus be evident that the widows/NOKs/children of serving PBOR/ex-servicemen were facing difficulties due to not publishing the personal occurrences like marriage/birth of child/death of spouse/child and adoption of child during life time of the servicemen/ex-servicemen and therefore it was decided to publish the said occurrences by all Record Offices in NE Series, Part II Orders even after the death of serving PBOR and ex-servicemen on the request of concerned widows/NOKs/children with requisite supporting documents duly verified by the concerned Zila Sainik Boards. 10. In the case in hand, the name of the petitioner was not published in the service record of the deceased serviceman during his life time. The petitioner by filing an application dated 25.01.2021 through “Zila Sainik Kalyan Karyalaya”, Ranchi requested the respondent no. 10. In the case in hand, the name of the petitioner was not published in the service record of the deceased serviceman during his life time. The petitioner by filing an application dated 25.01.2021 through “Zila Sainik Kalyan Karyalaya”, Ranchi requested the respondent no. 2 for grant of family pension and in support of her claim, she filed various documents such as birth certificate, family member certificate issued by the Circle Officer, Bero, Ranchi, certificate issued by Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat- Bero, certificate of annual secondary examination, copies of Aadhar and PAN cards showing Dewa Oraon and Hira Devi as her father and mother respectively. The respondent no. 2 instead of examining the documents filed by the petitioner in support of her claim, issued letter to the respondent no. 3 to verify the claim of the petitioner as at the time of her birth, the age of her mother was 53 years. In course of verification, the Deputy Superintendent, Sadar Hospital, Ranchi opined that a healthy woman of 53 years can give birth of a child. 11. I am of the considered view that the respondent no. 2 did not follow the required procedure for publication of birth of children even after the death of deceased ex-serviceman as stipulated in letter dated 16.05.2008 and has rejected the claim of the petitioner merely on the ground that her name was not published by her father during his life time. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the letter dated 28.06.2022 is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the respondent no. 2 to verify the documents submitted by the petitioner along with her application and to pass a fresh order in accordance with law within eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 13. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.