ORDER

The applicant has filed the instant Original Application seeking the following relief(s):-

“(i) This Hon’ble Tribunal may please to issue an order or direction in appropriate nature to quash and set-aside the impugned order dated 27.9.2023 (Annexure A-1).

(ii) This Hon’ble Tribunal may please to issue an order or direction in appropriate nature upon the respondent no.2 to grant and release the family pension to the applicant w.e.f. 31.1.2023 i.e. after the death of his father.

(iii) This Hon’ble Tribunal may please to issue an order or direction in appropriate nature upon the respondents to pay the arrears of family pension from the date of due to date of actual payment with interest 12% interest.

(iv) This Hon’ble Tribunal may please to issue any other order or further suitable order or direction in the facts and circumstances of the case which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper.

(v) This Hon’ble Tribunal may please to award the cost of the application in favour of the applicant.”

2. The facts, in brief, are that father of the applicant namely Sri Lalji Pandey was the employee of respondents. He came to be superannuated from service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.7.2015. According to the applicant, he is physically handicapped with 70% disability and was fully dependent on the income of his father. As per the rules, in vogue, the name of the applicant was endorsed in form 6 by the father of the applicant as dependent disabled son for the purposes of family pension.

2.1 After retirement, the father of the applicant was issued PPO in his favour. In the PPO itself, the name of the applicant has been mentioned as dependent family member. All of sudden, the father of the applicant died on 29.1.2023 in an accident at Ahmadabad. After the sad demise of his father, the applicant approached the authorities concerned for payment of family pension in his favour with clear stipulation that his name has been mentioned in the PPO. However, the claim of the applicant came to be rejected vide order dated 27.9.2023. Hence, this O.A.

3. On notice, the respondents have contested the claim of the applicant by filing a Counter Affidavit, wherein they have stated that as per Medical Board, policy of each case of family pension for handicapped dependent has to be sent for medical examination under a panel of nominated railway doctors. On the findings of the Medical Board, disability of dependent is certified for family pension. They have further stated that as per findings of Medical Board conducted by a panel of railway doctors, he was found hearing handicapped, but his disability is not an absolute impairment for earning his livelihood and he can get employment under disability quota for hearing or can involve himself in other employment involving physical labour. The respondents also pleaded that at the time of retirement of Lalji Pandey, the applicant was mentioned as dependent disabled son on the basis of medical certificate issued by the district authority. The eligibility for granting family pension is a subject of medical examination under the nominated panel of railway doctors.

3.1 The respondents have further averred that on the representation of the applicant, he was referred to nominated panel of railway doctors for his medical examination wherein he was found hearing handicapped, but his disability is not an absolute impairment for earning his livelihood. Lastly, they have stated that O.A. has no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

4. In rebuttal, the applicant has filed Rejoinder Affidavit to the Counter Affidavit filed by the respondents denying the contentions made in the Counter Affidavit while reiterating the averments made in the Original Application.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings available on record.

6. The short question involved in this O.A. is whether