IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that the family pension for disabled dependents is a right, not a charity, and that authorities must exercise their discretion with compassion and sensitivity, ensuring that decisions are not solely based on potentially flawed medical assessments.

JUDGMENT :

EASWARAN S., J.

1. Can a claim for disability benefit be declined by the authorities on the ground that a 100% deaf and dumb person with complete blindness in the left eye could maintain himself by earning a livelihood. The report of the Medical Board which holds so by Railway Establishment found favour with the Central Administrative Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’, for short). Faced with the said situation, the applicant had come up with this Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Succinctly the facts are as follows:

The applicant is the disabled son of late V Rajan Pillai, who was an employee of South Central Railway and had voluntarily retired on 28.2.2005, later expired on 1.6.2018. Mrs. T. Radhamma, the wife of late V Rajan Pillai also expired on 19.11.2021. After the expiry of his parents, the applicant claimed disability pension with the respondents. The death certificates, the income certificate and also the disability certificate were produced before the respondents. However, obviously for strange reasons, the claim of the petitioner was turned down under Annexures A14 and A15. The reason for turning down the claim is evident from Annexure A12. The respondents appeared before the Tribunal and raised their defense by placing reliance on Rule 75(6) (d) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 (‘the Pension Rules’ for short).

3. The Tribunal, on consideration of the materials on record, dismissed the Original Application on 14.12.2023 on the ground that the applicant is not entitled to have the disability pension on the ground that the Medical Board had certified that he is perfectly capable of earning his livelihood.

4. We have heard Sri. Jijumon H, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K.R. Rajkumar, the learned CGC.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the order of the Tribunal is perverse and the Tribunal clearly erred in dismissing the Original Application. The reliance placed by the respondents to Rule 75 (6)(d) of the Pension Rules is totally inapplicable insofar as the disability of the petitioner is clearly proved by Annexure A12 certificate. Still further, reliance placed on Annexure A12 to the extent that the petitioner is capable of earning his livelihood has no rational basis and hence suffers from a vice of arbitrariness and non-application of mind. He further contended that the Tribunal erred in blindly relying on the said certificate and dismissing the Original Application, hence the same is liable to be interfered with by this Honourable Court in exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. On the other hand, the learned Central Government Counsel pointed out that the petitioner cannot claim disability benefit because of the specific bar under Rule 75(6)(d) of the Pension Rules. He would further point out that as per Annexure A12, the petitioner is certainly capable of earning his livelihood and therefore the disability pension cannot be granted to him.

7. We have considered the rival submissions raised across the Bar.

8. Before we give reasons for our finding, it is appropriate to extract the contents of Annexure A12:

9. A reading of Annexure A12 would no doubt show that the Medical Board has assessed the percentage of earning capacity as the on