Shri S.M. Ali, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri K.K.

Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents, were present at the time of

hearing.

The instant original application has been filed seeking

following relief:

“i. To quash the impugned order dated 07-12-2019 (A-1)

passed by the Chief Workshop Manager, Jhansi.

ii.To issue order or direction to the respondents for grant of

family pension in favour of the applicant in light of family

2

pension Rules – 1993, and to pay the arrear of family pension

from the due date along with 12% in favour of the applicant, or

to pass any such order as deem fit in the facts and

circumstances of the case.

iii. Award the cost of the Petition in favour of the applicant.”

3.

A compendium of the facts narrated in the instant original

application is that the applicant seeks the benefit of family pension on

the ground that his father died in harness and was drawing pension.

The applicant’s contention is that he is liable to be granted the benefit

of family pension owning to the fact that he is 100% disabled and

unable to earn a livelihood for himself and his family and was entirely

dependent on his father for his survival. Respondents have rejected

the claim of the applicant vide impugned order dated 07.12.2019

citing a few circulars which the applicant claims to be illegal and

arbitrary. By way of the OA, applicant seeks quashing of the

aforementioned impugned order and a direction to the respondents to

grant family pension in favour of the applicant along with interest.

4.

Initiating his arguments, learned counsel for the applicant

argued that the father of the applicant was employed in respondents’

department and he retired on 28.02.2002. He was getting pension

which was the sole source of livelihood for his family that also

included the applicant, applicant’s wife and the applicant's mother.

Applicant’s father died on 09.12.2015 and his mother had passed

away on 31.01.2009. Learned counsel further argued that the applicant

is 100% disabled (blindness) as per the certificate dated 27.04.2011

issued by the Chief Medical Officer on the basis of which the Jhansi

Division, North Central Railways has issued identity card for his

100% blindness thereby admitting to the applicant’s disability. Even

after attaining the age of 25 years, the applicant is unable to earn a

livelihood on account of his disability. The applicant submitted a

representation dated 16.09.2019 to the Chief Workshop Manager,

Jhansi for granting the family pension as per his disability under Rule

75(6) of Pension Rules – 1993. Learned counsel further argued that

3

the Railway Board issued RBE No. 22 of 2016 for granting the family

pension to the disabled child by circular dated 24.02.2016 according

to which the applicant is eligible for grant of family pension. Learned

counsel further argued that respondents have rejected the applicant’s

claim citing RBE No. 12 of 2010 dated 15.01.2010 which is ultra

virus and contrary to Rules – 75(6) of the Railway Pension Rules –

1993. Thus, relying upon his averments, learned counsel for the

applicant argued that the instant OA may be allowed by directing the

respondents to grant family pension in favour of the applicant.

5.

Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed

the contentions of the applicant and by way of the counter affidavit,

he has submitted that the name of the applicant was not entered by his

father in the settlement book submitted at the time of retirement which

contains the details of family members. Medical facility is provided

by the Railways to those of dependent family members, whose

particulars are given in the settlement book unless they become

ineligible at a later date due to marriage and no longer fulfill the

dependency criteria. As per instruction contained in para (2) of RBE

No. 12/2010 issued by the Railway Board, married sons and

daughters, whether suffering from any disorder / disability, are not

eligible for family pension as per the extant instr