ORDER

(As per Hon’ble Mr. B.V.Sudhakar, Admin. Member) Through Video Conferencing:

2. The OA is filed in regard to denial of family pension.

3. Brief facts of the case are that after the demise of the father of the applicant on 27.2.1974, who worked for the respondents organization, and later his mother in 2010, on whom the applicant depended upon, respondents denied to grant secondary family pension vide letter dated 18.11.2014 though he is eligible as per rules. Aggrieved the OA is filed.

4. The contentions of the applicant are that being disabled and unmarried, he is eligible for secondary family pension vide letter letters

2.9.2009, 20.5.2011 read with DOPT letters 17.8.2009 & 28.4.2011 respectively. Family pension and Pensionary benefits were granted to the mother of the applicant on his father’s demise and after her demise, when several representations were submitted to grant secondary family pension, respondents sought submission of unwarranted certificates like earning capacity certificate etc. Applicant is the only dependent disabled nominated family member of the deceased employee. Rejection of secondary family pension on the ground of earning capacity is illegal and defeats the very objective of family pension. Applicant further contended that secondary family pension has to be granted on lines similar to that of divorced woman and on humanitarian grounds.

5. Respondents in the reply statement stated that the Welfare Officer enquired into the claim of the applicant and reported that he was physically handicapped as well as married having 6 children. The applicant after due medical examination at Railway Hospital, Vijayawada on 8.11.2014, was declared to have disability which did not prevent him from working.

Indeed, applicant worked as a cobbler to earn his livelihood and therefore, the claim was rejected on 3.1.2015. As per the date of birth of the applicant, he is 53 years old and as per Pension Rules dependency of male child is up to the age of 25 years subject to the condition he is unmarried, dependent with no source of income. As per sub-rule 6 of Rule 75 of Railway Services (Pension) Rules 1993, the applicant is ineligible for secondary family pension. Mere declaration as a family member would not entitle the applicant to the benefit sought.

6. Heard both the counsel and perused the pleadings on record. 7 (I) The dispute is in regard to grant of secondary family pension to the applicant. The applicant is the disabled son of the deceased employee who worked for the respondents as Sealer. After the death of his father on 27.2.1974 family pension was sanctioned to the mother of the applicant and she too passed away on 10.2.2010. Applicant sought secondary family pension after the demise of his mother and the same was got verified by the Welfare Officer who reported that the applicant was earning his livelihood as cobbler and was married with 6 children. The same was not denied by way of rejoinder by the applicant. The respondents got the applicant medically examined at the Railway Hospital, Vijayawada and in the medical certificate issued on 8.11.2014, it was declared that the extent of disability with which the applicant was suffering would not come in his way to work for livelihood.

II. In this regard, sub-rule 6 of Rule No.75 of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 which governs sanctioning of secondary family pension, states as under:

“(6) The period for which family pension is payable shall be as follows:

(i) xxx (ii) subject to second proviso, in the case of an unmarried son, until he attains the age of twenty five years or until he gets married or until he starts earning his livelihood, whichever is the earliest;

Xxxx (v) subject to sub-rule (10 B) and the fourth proviso, in the case of disabled siblings (i.e. brother and sister) who were dependent on the railway