IMPORTANT POINT
A disabled individual with a valid medical certificate is entitled to family pension, and such entitlement cannot be denied based on non-medical assessments of their past ability to work.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

1. Heard Ms. Usha Devi Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Usha Kiran, learned counsel appearing for respondents.

2. Petitioner who claims to be a disabled person and totally dependent upon the parents is aggrieved by the decision taken by the Senior Accounts Officer, Pension of the Kanpur Electricity Supply Company Ltd. dated 12.11.2020 whereby his claim for dependent/ family pension has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that under the relevant Government Order issued by the state government on 20.05.1997, disabled persons have been made entitled to family pension. Such disability can be physical or mental but it should be of the nature that it is difficult for the dependent to earn livelihood for survival. It is submitted that such disability pension to the dependents for physical or mental disability is in the nature of family pension and this is how the erstwhile Government Order dated 06.08.1981 has been amended to facilitate this family pension.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that father of the petitioner who was an ex-employee of the respondent retired upon attaining age of superannuation on 31.05.1975 and thereafter he died in the year 2003 and so consequently the mother of the petitioner started getting pension. Mother according to the petitioner died later on 21.04.2013 and resultantly the petitioner being dependent upon his mother made an application for family pension, to respondent on 07.05.2013. After petitioner moved an application, he received a letter from Senior Accounts Officer, Pension, asking him to furnish medical certificate of Chief Medical Officer or of an equivalent medical officer regarding his physical disability. After this letter was received by the petitioner he obtained physical disability certificate from the Chief Medical Officer, Kanpur Nagar on 11.10.2013 and submitted the same before the concerned respondent, namely, Senior Accounts Officer on 14.10.2013.

5. Ms. Usha Singh Devi, learned Advocate submitted that despite medical certificate of the Chief Medical officer submitted before the authority, the matter was referred to a four member committee constituted to examine the claim of the petitioner and whereas the committee was not equipped with any medical skill, nor committee consisted of any medical officer, it rejected the claim of the petitioner only on the ground that at some point of time he was running public call office (PCO) and so he was able to earn and that the petitioner was found to be physically disabled up to some extent. Thus, according to her committee rejected the petitioner's claim of disability and so his claim for pension wholly illegally. As a consequence to the decision taken by the committee the Accounts Officer who was one of the members of the committee passed an order dated 12.11.2020 impugned in the petition rejecting claim of the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that merely because at the some point of time the petitioner ran a PCO, petitioner was not a disabled person and such a decision was bad for the reason that none of the members of the committee was qualified enough to reject the certificate of the Chief Medical officer. It is submitted that as per the rules and the relevant government orders, in every government service and also for the purposes of pension etc, it is the certificate of the Chief Medical Officer or medical officer of an officer of equivalent rank which would weigh and not the decision of unskilled persons or the committee which has no medical officer on its panel. It is argued that medical certificate issued by an authorized officer can only be questioned by a medical board or medical officer of higher rank and not by administrative officer like Deputy General Manager, Senior Accounts Officer, Account Officer or Assistant Accountant.

7. Per contra, defending the decision taken by the authority, learned counsel appearing