Ram Krishna vs SOUTH EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY on 5 November 2026

O R D E R

The present original application has been directed against the recommendation dated 27.05.2024 (Annexure A-1) by which reauthorization of the family pension has been denied to the applicant on the recommendation of the Medical Board.

2. The learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is 100% medically disabled due to deafness and dumbness since childhood. In this regard, he has referred to the letter dated 27.06.2023 (Annexure A-3) and submitted that in the said letter the respondents have admitted the disability of the applicant. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that despite the above admitted fact, the respondents have recommended that the applicant is capable of earning livelihood by alternate means. The learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the action of the respondents is arbitrary, unjust, unlawful and against the rules. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the applicant has referred to Rule 75(6) of Railway Service (pension) Rules 1993 and has submitted that the physically disabled son or daughter is entitled for family pension, if such physically disabled child is unable to earn livelihood. Since the applicant is 100% disabled since birth and was dependent on his deceased mother, therefore, he is entitled for family pension. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the applicant has also cited the judgment of

ANAND PRAKASH DUBEY

Hon’ble High Court of M.P in the case of Union of India & Ors Vs. Baba Singh – 2013 (1) MPLJ 416 and has prayed that the recommendation dated 27.05.2024 may be quashed and relief may be granted to the applicant.

3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has stated that as per rules, the applicant has been examined by the Railway Doctor and has been found to be capable to earn livelihood by alternative means. On his request, the applicant was also re-examined by the Medical Board wherein he was again found to be capable of earning his livelihood. The learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that as per para (b) of Rule 75(6) of Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993, before allowing the family pension for life to any dependent child suffering from mental disability, the sanctioning authority shall satisfy that the handicap is of such nature so as to prevent him / her from earning his / her livelihood and the same shall be evidenced by a certificate obtained from Medical Board setting out, as far as possible, the exact mental or physical condition of the child (Annexure R-1). The learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that the physical disability is not the sole criteria for grant of family pension. The physical disability should be to such an extent where the child is unable to earn his livelihood. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the respondents has cited the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Madhya

ANAND PRAKASH DUBEY

Pradesh in Writ Petition No. 10907/2023 – Ashok Kumar Soni Vs. State of M.P & Ors and prayed to dismiss the OA.

4. Heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings.

5. It is noted that the applicant's disability is duly established from the letter of the competent medical authority dated 27.06.2023 (Annexure A-3) which does not negate the disability of the applicant. It merely records an observation that the applicant is capable of earning his livelihood despite his disability. This observation recorded by the respondents in the impugned order is not sustainable in law. In the present case, the applicant is suffering from 100% mental disorder from childhood and he was fully dependant on his mother after the demise of his father. Looking to the nature of disability of the applicant, he is unable to do any kind of physical job and has always beendependant on his mother, who was getting family pension of her deceased husband. It is pertinent to note that the applicant has been denied re-authorization of family pension solely under sub rule (b) of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 Chapter Rule 75. In the case of Union of India Vs. Baba Singh (Supra), the Hon’ble High Court of M.P has held the following: - “The expression “the handicap is of such nature so as to prevent him or her from earning his or her livelihood”, is therefore, not be construed strictly to mean that since any one can earn his livelihood and therefore even a handicap

ANAND PRAKASH DUBEY

person can also earn his livelihood. But it is to be seen from the angle of such handicapped person who has been dependent on his capacity to earn by himself has depleted because of being handicapped.”

6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Tribunal finds that the applicant is suffering from 100% mental disability being deaf and dumb since birth and was dependent upon his deceased mother, who was getting family pension. Merely because the Medical Board has opined that the applicant can earn livelihood in the disability category cannot be a ground to deny re-authorization of family pension, particularly when there is no evidence on record to show that he is actually employed or capable of maintaining himself independently. A disabled dependent child who is unable to maintain himself is entitled for consideration of family pension benefits.

7. Since the applicant's disability to the extent of 100% mental disorder has not been disputed by the medical officers of the respondents department before whom the applicant was subsequently examined, the mere observation recorded in the medical report that the applicant is capable of earning his livelihood despite such disability cannot, by itself, be treated as sufficient to deny him consideration for family pension, particularly when his disability has otherwise been duly established. If the aforesaid facts are considered in

ANAND PRAKASH DUBEY

the light of the ratio laid down in the case of Union of India Vs. Baba Singh (Supra), I am of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the respondents cannot be sustained in law.

8. Accordingly, the OA No. 670/2024 is allowed. The impugned recommendation dated 27.05.2024 (Annexure A-1) is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the applicant for re-authorization of family pension and thereafter pass a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with Rules within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

9. All associated MAs also stand disposed of.

10. There shall be no order as to costs.

(Mallika Arya)

Administrative Member Anand…

ANAND PRAKASH DUBEY