Original Application No. 332/00478/2015. Case: Sandeep Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.. Central Administrative Tribunal

Case NumberOriginal Application No. 332/00478/2015
CounselFor Appellant: Sri Alok Trivedi, Adv. and For Respondents: Sri B.B Tripathi, Adv.
JudgesMr. V.C. Gupta, Member - J
IssueRailway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 - Rule 75(6)(iii) & (b)
Judgement DateMay 16, 2017
CourtCentral Administrative Tribunal


  1. By means of this O.A the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:

    i. To set aside the impugned order dated 24.04.2014, as contained in Annexure No. 1 to the O.A.

    ii. To direct the respondents, particularly the respondent No. 2 and 3 to forthwith sanction and pay family pension to the applicant and pay the monthly family pension amount regularly as and when the same becomes due and the arrears thereof w.e.f. 27.04.2008 alongwith admissible interest thereon till the actual date of payment.

    iii. Any other order or direction that this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit, just and proper under the circumstances of the case, may also be passed, favouring the applicant.

    iv. Allow the present application with costs.

  2. The facts giving rise to this O.A are that applicant's father late Om Prakash Srivastava retired from post of Senior Chargeman from Loco Workshop, Charbagh, Lucknow on 31.10.1986. After retirement his pension was sanctioned. Sri O.P. Srivastava expired on 23.01.2001 after retirement leaving behind his wife and the present applicant as dependant. The other sons and daughters of late O.P. Srivastava were married and were already settled elsewhere. Family pension was sanctioned to the mother of the applicant after death of his father. The mother, Smt Shanti Devi also expired on 26.04.2008 leaving behind the applicant as a sole dependent on her income. After death of his mother, he asked for the family pension on the ground of physical disability under Rule 75(6)(iii) & (b) of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. The applicant claimed that when he was 11 months old he suffered with disease commonly known as Polio and muscles of his both lower limbs were paralysed. The disability certificate was issued by Medical Board consisting of CMO, Lucknow and other specialised Members certifying that the applicant is a case of -- Post polio residual paralysis-- both lower limbs with disability of more than 90% and that he is permanently physically handicapped. Another certificate was issued on 30.01.2009 affirming the same situation and no change in the permanent disability of the applicant was found.

  3. The applicant applied for grant of family pension on 24.04.2009 in pursuance of requirement of Rule 75(6) of Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993. The competent authority in absence of any evidence of earning capacity of the applicant due to his permanent disability declined the claim of family pension. by an order dated 04.06.2009. Against this order, the applicant preferred an O.A No. 08/2013. The O.A was allowed. The relevant portion of the order dated 13.12.2013 is extracted herein below:

    -- 8. Considering the proviso as contained in Rule 75(6)(iii) and 75 (6)(b) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules,1993, I deem it proper to interfere in the present O.A. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 4.6.2009 is quashed. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant for grant of family pension strictly in accordance with provisions as provided under Rule 75(6) (iii) and 75(6) (b) of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. The decision be taken within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and the decision so taken be communicated to the applicant.

  4. With the above observations, O.A. is allowed. No order as to costs.--

  5. Thereafter the respondents started fresh exercise and call for report of CMO, Lucknow with regard to earning capacity of the applicant. The CMO after examination of the applicant on 09.04.2014 has forwarded the opinion in respect of the applicant to the competent authority with observation that in the opinion of the Board Members, the applicant Sandeep Kumar Srivastava with his present disability can earn his livelihood with help of aids and appliances like motorised wheel chair. Relying upon the same, the application for grant of family pension was declined by the competent authority in the light of Rule 75(6)(iii) & (b) of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 by the impugned order dated 24.04.2014 which is extracted herein below:


To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT