SUNITA SHARMA vs UNION OF INDIA GENERAL MANAGER NORTHERN RAILWAY on 7 October 2026

ORDER

Per Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this case relating to family pension, the applicant has sought following reliefs: “(i) That this Hon’ble Court/Tribunal may kindly be pleased to set aside the information order dated 13.06.2024 as well as its consequential rejection order from summoning the opp. parties, which has not been served upon the applicant, as contained in Annexure No. 1 to this original application.

(ii) That this Hon’ble Court/Tribunal may kindly be pleased to direct the opp. parties to provide family pension to the applicant forthwith with effect from the date of death of her mother dated 16.06.2023.

(iii) That this Hon’ble Court may pass any other order or directing in favour of the applicant which is deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(iv) That allow the instant O.A. with cost in favour of the applicant.”

2. The facts of the case are that the applicant’s father, Kanti Prasad Sharma, who was working in Northern Railway, retired from service on 30.11.1993 and he passed away on 02.10.1994. The applicant’s mother, who was receiving family pension after the death of her father, also passed away on 16.06.2023. The applicant applied for grant of family pension on the ground that she was fully dependent on her parents and was 100% blind, but her case was rejected by the respondents vide the impugned order dated 13.06.2024. Aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.

3. The applicant contends that she is suffering from 100% permanent blindness certified by the Chief Medical Officer, Lucknow and that she has been issued a Unique Disability ID and, therefore, she is entitled to family pension in terms of Railway Board’s letter dated 08.07.2022. She also contends that her mother had applied on 29.08.2022 for her inclusion in the Pension Payment Order (PPO) and her mother also approached this Tribunal in OA No. 574 of 2022 whereupon this Tribunal, vide order dated 06.01.2023, directed the respondents to decide her representation but she passed away on 16.06.2023 and the applicant’s name was not included in the PPO.

4. The respondents state that the deceased railway employee, Kanti Prasad Sharma, left behind his wife, the applicant, one other married daughter and two married sons. They submit that an enquiry was conducted through the Welfare Inspector on the applicant’s representation for family pension and as per the enquiry report the applicant is not completely blind but suffers from weak eyesight and that she has married one Surendra Chauhan and that the applicant’s siblings have disputed her claims regarding her income and educational qualification and, therefore, her claim to family pension appears suspicious and is not admissible.

5. Heard both the parties. 6.1 Perusal of Railway Board’s letter dated 08.07.2022 cited by the applicant brings out the following dispensation of relevance to the controversy at hand: “Sub: Eligibility of married disabled child for family pension. …

5. In view of the above, a disabled son or daughter, who is already married or who gets married, can be sanctioned family pension for life subject to livelihood criteria and that no other family member is having prior claim for family pension, as per the provisions of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993.” (emphasis supplied)

It follows from the above that married disabled daughter is entitled to family pension subject to livelihood criteria and no prior claim from other family member as per provisions of extant pension rules. 6.2 In view of the position above, in the case at hand, the marriage of the applicant would be no bar to her entitlement to family pension if

(i) her disability is established; (ii) she qualifies as per livelihood criteria; and, (iii) there is no prior claim for family pension by other family member. 6.3 Admittedly, there is no prior claim for family pension on record. 6.4 Perusal of the Welfare Inspector’s report dated 04.05.2024 reveals that the applicant’s eligibility as per the livelihood criteria has not been examined at all. The Welfare Inspector interviewed the applicant, her sister Sangita Pandey and one of her brothers, Vineet Sharma, but he could not interview the applicant’s other brother (Puneet Sharma) and also did not interview the applicant’s husband. On the basis of the statements given by the applicant’s siblings, the Welfare Inspector concluded that both the place of death and the date of death recorded in the death certificate of the applicant’s mother were doubtful, but no effort appears to be have been to verify the authenticity of the death certificate from the competent issuing authority. 6.5 In regard to the disability certificate dated 01.02.2012 by the applicant, the Welfare Inspector recorded the statement of the applicant’s sister, Sangita Pandey, that the 100% blindness certificate of the applicant was fraudulent and the statement of the applicant’s brother, Vineet Sharma, that the applicant is not 100% blind though her eyesight got weak after the birth of her daughter. Again, no effort appears to have been made to verify the authenticity of the disability certificate from the issuing authority. 6.6 At this stage, reference to rule 75(6) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 which contains provision for family pension to disabled daughter and is extracted below is in order: “(6) The period for which family pension is payable shall be as follows:-

(i) subject to first proviso, in the case of a widow or widower, up to the date of death or re-marriage, whichever is earlier;

(ii) subject to second proviso, in the case of an unmarried son, until he attains the age of twenty-five years or until he gets married or until he starts earning his livelihood, whichever is the earliest;

(iii) subject to second and third provisos, in the case of an unmarried or widowed or divorced daughter, until she gets married or remarried or until she starts earning her livelihood, whichever is earlier;

(iv) subject to sub-rule (10 A), in the case of parents, who were wholly dependent on the railway servant immediately before the death of the railway servant, for life;

(v) subject to sub-rule (10 B) and the fourth proviso, in the case of disabled siblings (i.e. brother and sister) who were dependent on the railway servant immediately before the death of railway servant, for life: Provided that family pension shall continue to be payable to a childless widow on re-marriage, if her income from all other sources is less than the amount of minimum family pension under sub-rule (2) of this rule and the dearness relief admissible thereon: Provided further that if the son or daughter of a railway servant is suffering from any disorder or disability of mind including the mentally retarded or is physically crippled or disabled so as to render him or her unable to earn a living even after attaining the age of twenty five years, the family pension shall be payable to such son or daughter for life subject to the following conditions, namely :- (a) if such son or daughter is one among two or more children of the railway servant, the family pension shall be initially payable to the minor children (mentioned in clause (ii) or clause (iii) of this sub-rule) in the order set out in clause (iii) of sub-rule (8) of this rule until the last child attains the age of twenty-five years and thereafter the family pension shall be resumed in favour of the son or daughter suffering from disorder or disability of mind, including the mentally retarded, or who is physically crippled or disabled and shall be payable to him or her, for life; (b) if there are more than one such children suffering from disorder or disability of mind including the mentally retarded or who are physically crippled or disabled, the family pension shall be paid in the order of their birth and the younger of them shall get the family pension only after the elder next above him or her ceases to be eligible: Provided that where the family pension is payable to such twin children it shall be paid in the manner set out in clause (iv) of sub-rule (7) of this rule;

(c) the family pension shall be paid to such son or daughter through the guardian as if he or she were a minor except in the case of the physically crippled son or daughter who has attained the age of majority; (d) before allowing the family pension for life to any such son or daughter, the appointing authority shall satisfy that the handicap is of such a nature so as to prevent him or her from earning his or her livelihood and the same shall be evidenced by a certificate obtained from a Medical Board comprising of a Medical Director or a Chief Medical Superintendent or incharge of a Zonal Hospital or Division or his nominee as Chairperson and two other members, out of which at least one shall be a specialist in the particular area of mental or physical disability including mental retardation setting out, as far as possible, the exact mental or physical condition of the child; (e) the person receiving the family pension as guardian of such son or daughter or such son or daughter not receiving the family pension through a guardian shall produce a certificate, from a Medical Board comprising of a Medical Director or a Chief Medical Superintendent or incharge of a Zonal Hospital or Division or his nominee as Chairperson and two other members, out of which at least one shall be a specialist in the particular area of mental or physical disability including mental retardation, once, if the disability is permanent and if the disability is temporary, once in every

five years to the effect that he or she continues to suffer from disorder or disability of mind or continues to be physically crippled or disabled; (f) in the case of a mentally retarded son or daughter, the family pension shall be payable to a person nominated by the railway servant or the pensioner, as the case may be, and in case no such nomination has been furnished to the Head of Office by such railway servant or pensioner during his lifetime, to the person nominated by the spouse of such railway servant or family pensioner, as the case may be, later on and the guardianship certificate issued under section 14 of the National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disability Act, 1999 (44 of 1999), by a local level Committee, shall also be accepted for nomination or appointment of guardian for grant of family pension in respect of person(s) suffering from autism, cerebral palsy, mental retardation and multiple disabilities as specified in the said Act…” (emphasis supplied)

It follows from rule 75(6) quoted above that family pension is admissible to the daughter of the deceased railway servant if the daughter is mentally or physically so disabled as to render her incapable of earning a living. Further, before allowing family pension, the appointing authority shall satisfy itself that the handicap is of such nature so as to prevent the daughter from earning livelihood which shall be evidenced by the certificate of Medical Board of specified composition.

6.7 In conclusion, it is found that the respondents have rejected the applicant’s claim on the basis of statements made by her siblings and without verifying the factum of disability and the livelihood criteria in respect of the applicant. 7.1 In view of the foregoing, the order dated 13.06.2024 is quashed and set aside. The respondents shall verify the claims made by the applicant in regard to her disability and livelihood criteria and determine the applicant’s eligibility for family pension in terms of rule 75(6) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 and decide her case for grant of family pension within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 7.2 Associated MAs also stand disposed of.

7.3 Parties shall bear their own costs.

(Pankaj Kumar) Member (A)

Vidya Vidya Ben Waghela Digitally signed by Vidya Ben Waghela Date: 2026.10.07 15:02:00 +05'30'