2008 (3) TMI 783 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Entitlement to family pension for a disabled son after the death of a retired railway employee.
2. Compliance with procedural requirements for claiming family pension.
3. Validity of reasons provided by the respondents for denying family pension.

Summary:

Issue 1: Entitlement to Family Pension for a Disabled Son

The petitioner claimed family pension u/s Rule 75 of the Family Pension Scheme for Railway Servants, 1964, asserting that he is 55% physically handicapped and unable to earn his livelihood. The petitioner argued that the family pension should continue in his name after the death of his father, a retired railway employee, as he is a disabled son with permanent disability. The court noted that Rule 75(6) allows family pension to a son suffering from a disability that renders him unable to earn a living even after attaining the age of 25 years. The court held that the petitioner is entitled to family pension during his lifetime due to his disability.

Issue 2: Compliance with Procedural Requirements

The petitioner submitted all required documents, including a disability certificate from AIIMS dated 28th April 1997. The respondents initially denied the family pension on the grounds that the father did not provide written information about the petitioner's disability at the time of retirement. However, the court found that the petitioner had complied with all procedural requirements and that the respondents' rejection based on procedural grounds was invalid.

Issue 3: Validity of Reasons Provided by Respondents

The respondents argued that the petitioner was not entitled to family pension because his disability was not mentioned by his father at the time of retirement and that the disability certificate did not explicitly state that the petitioner was unable to earn his livelihood. The court held that the respondents could not supplement their original reasons for denial with new grounds in their counter-affidavit. The court cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner, stating that the validity of an order must be judged by the reasons mentioned at the time it was made and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons later. The court concluded that the respondents' reasons for denying the family pension were invalid and that the petitioner is entitled to family pension during his lifetime.

Conclusion:

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that he is entitled to family pension during his lifetime due to his disability. The respondents were directed to pay the family pension to the petitioner from the date of his father's death on 25th December 2000 and to continue paying it during his lifetime. The parties were left to bear their own costs.