(Open Court)

Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad Bench, Allahabad ****

Original Application No.157 of 2023 This the 15^th Day of December, 2025.

Hon’ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (J)

Ashu Roland, Aged about 44 Years, Son of Late Roland Gladwin, Resident of House No. 98, Mission Compound, Civil Lines, Tehsil-Sadar, District-Bareilly.

….Applicant.

By Advocate: Mr. Sunil/Mr. Avinash Kumar Sharma.

Versus

1. Union of India through General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.

2. Divisional Railway Manager, North Eastern Railway, Izzatnagar Division, Izzatnagar.

3. Divisional Personnel Officer, North Eastern Railway, Izzatnagr Division, Izzatnagar.

…Respondents By Advocate: Mr. N.C. Srivastava.

ORDER Mr. Avinash Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, and Mr. N.C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents, are present and heard.

2. The Original Application has been filed challenging the order dated 27.11.2014, whereby the claim of the applicant for grant of family pension has been rejected. The applicant has also challenged the order of the Pension Court, North Eastern Railway, Izzatnagar, passed in July, 2016. The reliefs sought are as follows:-

“i. Issue a writ order of direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order of Pension Court, North Eastern Railway, Izzatnagar dated July, 2016 and order dated 27.11.2014 passed in violation of rule 75 (6) and 75 (6) (B) of Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993.

ii. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to grant family pension to the applicant on the basis of his disability in the light of rule 75 (6) and 75 (6) (B) of Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993 and further direct to pay arrears of pension w.e.f. 01.02.2014 along with 12% interest thereupon. iii. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of present case. iv Award cost of the original application in favour of the applicant.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the father of the applicant, late Roland Gladwin, was employed as a Fitter in the Diesel Shed, North Eastern Railway, Izzatnagar, and retired on 31.05.1994. The applicant’s mother died on 04.01.2009, and his father died on 01.01.2014. The applicant claims to be 65% permanently disabled and fully dependent upon his father during his lifetime. After the death of his father, he applied for family pension, which was rejected by the respondents. Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed the present Original Application.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the disability certificate dated 06.06.1990, issued by the CMO, Bareilly, clearly establishes that the applicant was 65% physically handicapped even during the service tenure of his father. It is further submitted that the disability manifested long before the retirement of the applicant’s father, satisfying Explanation-1 to Rule 75(6). The certificate dated 06.06.1990 has been filed as Annexure A-5.

5. It is further submitted that there is no discrepancy regarding the disability of the applicant, and the respondents have wrongly rejected the claim despite the fact that the disability existed during the lifetime and service tenure of the deceased employee.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the claim of the applicant was rejected as he did not fulfil the conditions prescribed under Rule 75(6) and 75(6)(B) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, particularly regarding proof of inability to earn a livelihood.

7. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. Rule 75(6)(b) and Explanation-1, relevant for adjudication, provide that before allowing family pension for life to a disabled son or daughter, the authority must be satisfied—on the basis of a certificate from a Medical Officer not below the rank of Divisional Medical Officer—that the disability prevents such person from earning a livelihood. Explanation-1 further mandates that only such disability wh