Agartala, April 07, 2026: Tripura High Court has ruled that a daughter who obtained a divorce decree after the death of her pensioner father is not entitled to family pension under the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pension) Rules, 2017, holding that eligibility must exist on the date of death of the pensioner and cannot be acquired later.

Delivering the judgment, Justice S. Datta Purkayastha observed that under the relevant pension rules, only a daughter who was already divorced at the time of the pensioner’s death can claim family pension. The Court stated that the right to receive family pension accrues immediately upon the death of the original pensioner or the death of the spouse receiving pension, and the claimant must satisfy the eligibility conditions on that date.

The Court noted that in the present case, the petitioner’s marital status at the time of her father’s death in 2018 was that of a married daughter living separately from her husband, and not that of a divorced daughter. Although she obtained a decree of divorce in 2021, the Court held that such subsequent change in status does not create entitlement under the existing pension framework.

According to the case records, the petitioner’s father, a labourer with Agartala Municipal Corporation, retired from service in 2004 and passed away in 2018. The petitioner claimed that her husband had gone missing shortly after marriage and that she had been residing in her father’s house for more than four decades due to abandonment.

After securing a divorce decree in 2021, she applied for family pension, but her application was rejected by the authorities. Challenging the rejection, she approached the High Court contending that her prolonged dependence on her father should be considered.

However, the Court reiterated that under Rule 8 of the Revised Pension Rules, financial dependence alone is insufficient; marital status at the relevant time is the determining factor for eligibility.

Holding that the rules do not extend family pension benefits to a married daughter separated from her husband, the Court observed that it cannot reinterpret or rewrite legislative provisions beyond their plain meaning and dismissed the writ petition.

The case, titled Smt. Ujjala Rani Paul v. The Agartala Municipal Corporation & Others, was decided on April 1, 2026.

Senior Advocate P. Roy Barman appeared for the petitioner along with advocates Samarjit Bhattacharjee and Sujoy Sarkar, while Arijit Bhaumik represented the respondents.