SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 12630

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Jayesh V Bhairavia, Judicial Member
Rasheshkumar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application No.473/2022



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.M.S.Trivedi
For the Respondents: Ms. R R Patel

Family pension for disabled child requires Medical Board certificate confirming disability prevents earning livelihood; authority's denial upheld where board opines ability to earn despite 55% disability.

Headnote:(A) Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993 - Rule 75(6) incorporating Family Pension Scheme for Railway Servants, 1964 - Clause 6 - Family pension for life to disabled son - Condition that appointing authority must satisfy handicap prevents earning livelihood, evidenced by certificate from specified Medical Board - Applicant with 55% locomotive disability examined; Medical Board opined able to earn livelihood - Rejection of claim upheld as compliant with statutory requirement and directions for re-examination to clarify earning capacity. (Paras 6, 7, 7.1-7.3)

(B) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Scope of judicial review - No interference where subjective satisfaction of authority based on medical certificate from competent board, without contrary material; no requirement for separate inquiry into actual income or financial position. (Paras 8, 9)

Facts of the case:
Applicant, disabled son of deceased ex-railway employee, sought inclusion as beneficiary for family pension after death of mother (prior pensioner). Initial and re-examinations confirmed 55% permanent locomotive disability but ability to earn livelihood. Claim rejected relying on medical certificates; challenge filed before Tribunal.

Findings of Court:
Impugned rejection order in consonance with statutory provisions and medical opinion; no legal infirmities; OA lacks merit.

Issues: Whether rejection of family pension claim solely on Medical Board's opinion of ability to earn livelihood, without income inquiry, violates rules; whether disability percentage increase and lack of actual earnings entitle to pension.

Ratio Decidendi: Statutory requirement mandates medical certificate evidencing inability to earn; authority's satisfaction based on compliant certificate cannot be faulted absent contrary evidence; medical assessment determines eligibility, not actual employment status.

Result: Original Application dismissed.

Table of Content
1. applicant's medical examination confirmed 55% disability but ability to earn livelihood (Para 1)
2. applicant's timeline of family pension claim and prior rejections (Para 2)
3. rule 75(6) requires medical certificate proving inability to earn livelihood (Para 3)
4. family pension for disabled children requires medical evidence of livelihood incapacity (Para 6 , 7)
5. oa dismissed as denial based on valid medical opinion per rules (Para 8 , 9)

ORDER(ORAL)

Per : Honble Shri Jayesh Bhairavia, Member (J)

1. In the instant OA, it is noticed that for the purpose of consideration of the claim of the applicant to include his name as beneficiary for grant of family pension, being disable dependent son of late ShriPrabhulalBapalalBrahmbhatt, Ex. CTNL, DRM’s Office, Bhavnagar Para, Western Railway, the applicant herein was called for medical examination by the respondent No.3 i.e. DRM (E) Bhavnagar Para, Western Railway in compliance of the order dated 13.07.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Persons with Disabilities, Government of India. In response to the said letter dated 13.07.2022, the applicant appeared for medical examination before the committee of medical expert on 23.08.2022. On examination of the applicant, the medical experts had diagnosis that he has Locomotive disability. It has been also diagnosis in the case of the applicant that he has Post Traumatic L1, L4 Facture with Para paresis. He has 55% disability, permanent in relation to his (part of body) as per guidelines.

Further, it has been opined by the said medical experts that the applicant is able to earn his livelihood, accordingly, to that effect, the Chief Medical Superintendent, Divisional Railway Hospital, Bhavnagar Para, Western Railway i.e. respondent No.4 herein had issued Medical Certificate No.62/2021-22 dated 23.08.2022 which has been duly signed by the Member of the Medical examination Board and the applicant had also acknowledged the said certificate dated 23.08.2022 (Annexure A/2).

1.1 Based on the said medical certificate dated 23.08.2022 wherein the Medical Board had recorded their finding that the applicant has 55% disability and he is able to earn his livelihood, the competent authority i.e. DRM, Western Railway, Bhavnagar i.e., the respondent No.3 herein vide his order dated 05.09.2022 had not accepted the claim of the applicant to include his name for grant of family pension (Annexure A/1 refers).

Being aggrieved with the said order dated 05.09.2022 whereby the claim of the applicant has been denied by the respondent No.4 for inclusion of his name for the family pension being disable son of late Railway employee, the applicant herein has filed the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs :-

(A) That the Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to hold declare that impugned action on the part of the respondents regarding rejection of the claim of the applicant for Family Pension being dependent, disable, physically handicapped, son of the deceased Railway employee on the basis of the certificate dated 23.08.2022 issued by the Respondent No.4 on the ground that the applicant is able to earn his livelihood in non-est in the eyes of law.

(B) That the Hon’ble Tribunal further be pleased to direct the respondents to reconsider the claim / case of the applicant for Family Pension as per Rule and considering the fact that the disability of the applicant which was initially 40% is now more than 55% and the applicant is not earning, objectively and independently and without being influenced by the remarks made by the medical officer of the respondents.”

2. Mr. M.S.Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant in support of the aforesaid prayer mainly submitted as under:-

(i) It is stated that the father of the applicant namely late PrabhulalBrahmbhatt on attaining the age of superannuation was retired from Railway service on 31.05.1992.Thereafter, the father of the applicant expired on 24.04.2000.

(ii) Aft

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top