Eligibility for family pension is affirmed based on medical assessments indicating significant disability impacting the ability to earn a living.

JUDGMENT

Alexander Thomas, J.

This original petition is directed against the impugned Ext.P4 final order, rendered on 22.12.2017 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, in Original Application, O.A. No.205/2017. The petitioners herein are the respondents in the O.A. and the sole respondent herein is the applicant in the O.A.

2. The prayers in Ext.P1 original application, O.A.

No.205/2017, filed by the respondent herein before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, are as follows:-

“I) To call for the records leading to Annexure A-2 and set aside the same.

II) Direct the respondents to consider Annexure A3 disability certificate and pass appropriate orders in the application for pension submitted by the petitioner herein.

III) Declare that the Applicant is entitled to get Family Pension on Compassionate Grounds on the death of his father being his dependent.

IV) Such other relief as may be prayed for and this Tribunal may deem fit to grant.

V) Grant the cost of this Original Application.”

3. The main order under challenge in the above O.A. is Anx.A2 dated 01.12.2015, issued by the 3rd respondent in the O.A.

(Divisional Personnel Officer, Palakkad), whereby the claim of the original applicant for grant of family pension, on account of him being a disabled legal heir of the deceased pensioner, has been rejected on the ground that the medical assessment, done by the Railway Medical Board, shows that his permanent physical disability is only 40% and that, he can earn his own livelihood.

4. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, has rendered the impugned Ext.P4 verdict on 22.12.2017 in the above O.A., with the finding that three Medical Boards have found that the disability of the original applicant, at the time of the assessments done by them, were 40%, 50% & 65% respectively, because of the conjoint nexus between the limbs and their usage and the resultant diminishment of the limbs, and thus, the Tribunal has held that the applicant is eligible for the grant of family pension under the norms and that he should be paid the family pension with all arrears within two months. It is this verdict of the Tribunal, at Ext.P4, that is under challenge in the above O.P.

5. The original applicant’s father was an employee of the Railways, who retired from the Railway service on 21.01.1981 and he was granted pension during his life time. He died on 07.08.1990. Thereafter, the deceased pensioner’s widow (mother of the original applicant) was given family pension until her death on 27.11.2014. The original applicant, thereafter, submitted an application for grant of family pension, stating that he has serious degree of physical disability and that he has no means for livelihood and that he should be granted family pension, as per the norms. This was refused by the Railways, as per the abovesaid impugned proceedings, which has been interfered with by the Tribunal, as per Ext.P4 verdict. From the pleadings and materials, it appears that, three separate Medical Boards have given their assessment, at different points of time, stating that the disability of the applicant is 40%, later assessed as 50% and then later assessed as 65%.

6. The case of the Railway authorities is that, as per Clause 6 of Anx.R3 norms, an applicant for grant of family pension, claiming disability, can get family pension only if his disability is so as to render him or her unable to earn a living, even after attaining the age of twenty-five years, and that the family pension shall be payable to such son or daughter of the deceased pensioner, etc. Further, the railway authorities would place reliance on Sub-Clause (b) of Clause 6 of Anx.R3 norms, which envisages that the disability should be assessed by a certificate obtained from a medical officer not below the rank of a Divisional Medical Officer, etc. On this basis, they would contend that the Medical Officer should necessarily be a Railway Medical Officer of the Division concerned.

7. We have heard both