The court ruled that eligibility for family pension based on disability must be determined through proper medical assessment, not subjective judgment, emphasizing adherence to statutory requirements.

JUDGMENT :

Harish Kumar, J.

Heard Mr. Rajib Ranjan Jha, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Manish Kumar, learned Advocate for the State and Mr. Bindhyachal Rai, learned Advocate for the Accountant General, Bihar.

2. The petitioner is a retired Government employee, superannuated form the office of the District Magistrate, Banka on 31.12.1994 as Office Superintendent, has invoked the prerogative writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction upon the respondents to include the name of his elder son, namely, Prem Kumar Dutt, as nominee in the pension book, who has been suffering from mental disorder and deaf and dumb, unable to earn a living.

3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that the elder son of the petitioner is congenital deaf and dumb and is mentally retarded unable to earn living after attaining the age of 18 years. In course of treatment, it was diagnosed a small rounded, calcified nodule in right occipital region. Its impression is classified inflammation Granuloma in right occipital lobe. Considering the nature of disability, as has been suffering by the elder son of the petitioner, on the application made by the petitioner, the office of respondent no.3 has granted Social Security Pension of Rs.200/- (Two hundred) per month w.e.f. 23.08.2008.

4. The petitioner on being superannuated on 31.12.1994 has been looking after his son and the wife of the petitioner was nominee, thus he was satisfied that even after his death someone is there to look after his disabled son, but unfortunately, the wife of the petitioner died on 09.05.2021. In such circumstances, the petitioner filed a representation before the respondent no.5 requesting him to include the name of his elder son, namely, Prem Kumar Dutt in his PPO having number 237107 on account of the disability of his son incapacitating him do earn the living. The claim of the petitioner is based upon the Finance Department’s Memo No. Pen-103/64-9505-F, dated 03.09.1964 and Further Memo No. P1-11-1025/75 /1994 dated 19.03.1975 whereby the State government has liberalized the provision of admissibility of family pension to the son or daughter of the deceased Government Servant suffering from any disorder or disability of mind or physically crippled or disabled to earn living.

5. On receipt of the application/representation of the petitioner, the concerned respondent vide Memo No. 07 dated 15.09.2021 has informed him that to insert the name of his son in the pension book, departmental acceptance order is required. However, despite passage of sufficient time when nothing was done, the petitioner approached before this Court.

6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 3, 4 and 6. It is categorically averred that on a request made by the petitioner, the respondent no.3 vide Memo No. 135 dated 27.02.2023 has constituted a committee under the Chairmanship of ADM, Banka consisting of Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Banka and the Deputy Collector Establishment, District Collectorate, Banka as its member and directed to submit a report after due inquiry whether the son of the petitioner is fit or unfit to earn his living in order to decide the eligibility and entitlement of family pension to the petitioner’s son.

7. The Committee examined the son of the petitioner and submitted a report dated 23.12.2023 that in course of examination of the petitioner’s son his physical disability and infirmity was not found such that he is unable to earn living as such the petitioner’s son was not found fit for grant of family pension. The Chief Medical Officer in his medical report found that the son of the petitioner is 100% deaf and suffers from 55% mental disorder.

8. In view of the report submitted by the Committee, the respondent no.3 vide its Memo No. 245 dated 09.03.2024 has rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of family pension to his son.

9. Learned Advocate for the petitioner referring to th