VASIM KHAN vs NORTH CENTRAL RAILWAY

Reserved on 03.09.2026
Central Administrative Tribunal
Allahabad Bench,
Allahabad

th
This the 7 day of SEPTEMBER, 2026

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)

Original Application No. 1088 of 2024

Vasim Khan, aged about 28 years, Son of Late Sakbar, Resident of
Village Zaidpur, Shishgarh, Kacharenpura, Jaidpur, Tehsil Kulpahad,
District- Mahoba, U.P.
……….. APPLICANT
By Advocate: Shri M.R. Gupta

Versus
1. Union of India through Divisional Railway Manager, North
Central Railway, Jhansi.
2. Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway, Jhansi.
3. Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel), North central
Railway, Jhansi.
.……… RESPONDENTS
By Advocate: Ms. Seema Srivastava

ORDER
Heard Shri M.R. Gupta , learned counsel for the applicant
and Ms. Seema Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The instant original application has been filed seeking
following relief:
“ A. To set aside the impugned order dated 22.08.2024
passed by the Opposite Party No. 3.
B. To issue direction to the Opposite Party grant the
family pension to applicant. to the applicant.
1
ASHISH
KUMAR

C. To issue any other order or direction to the opposite
parties for which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and
proper.
D. To award cost of the application in favour of the
applicant.

3. The brief facts of the case as narrated in the OA are that the
applicant’s father, namely Sakbar Khan, was working as a Gangman
in the Railway Department at Faridabad and died in harness in the
year 2002, leaving behind his wife, Imaman Khatun, the applicant and
a daughter, Gulaksha. Thereafter, the applicant’s mother was
appointed under the Dying in Harness Rules, but she also died in
harness on 01.03.2005. Subsequently, the applicant’s sister, Gulaksha,
was appointed in place of their mother under the said Rules in the year
2017. The applicant, being a person with disability, was granted
disability family pension up to the age of 25 years, which was stopped
in October 2017. The applicant thereafter submitted representations
dated 17.11.2022 and 12.08.2024 seeking restoration of the disability
family pension, relying upon the applicable provisions relating to
family pension for a disabled child. However, the competent authority,
vide order dated 22.08.2024, rejected his representation on the ground
that he was capable of earning his livelihood despite his disability.
Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has filed the instant OA.
4. The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have submitted that
the applicant’s mother, Imaman Khatoon, had been appointed on
compassionate grounds and, after her death on 01.03.2005, family
pension was sanctioned in favour of her minor son and daughter
through their guardian. Subsequently, on 27.07.2018, the applicant
and his sister jointly requested restoration of the family pension in
favour of the applicant, who is a person with disability, as the pension
had been stopped from October 2017. Pursuant thereto, an inquiry was
conducted and, in terms of the Railway Board’s policy dated
24.08.2021, the applicant was medically examined by the Chief
Medical Officer, Jhansi. On the basis of the medical examination
report, the respondents found that the applicant, despite his disability,
2
ASHISH
KUMAR

was capable of earning his livelihood and, therefore, was not entitled
to family pension. The applicant was accordingly informed of the
decision vide letter dated 13.12.2021, and his subsequent
representations/applications were also replied to vide communications
dated 17.03.2023, 25.10.2023 and 22.08.2024.
5. I have considered the rival submission and gone through the
entire records.
6. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the
applicant, being a person with disability, is entitled to continuation of
family pension beyond the age of 25 years in terms of Rule 54(6) of
the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, as the said provision contemplates
lifelong family pension to a disabled son or daughter who is unable to
earn a livelihood due to the disability. Learned counsel further submits
that the respondents have rejected the applicant’s claim on the basis of
a medical opinion without furnishing or annexing the
disability/medical examination report with the impugned order,
thereby denying the applicant an opportunity to effectively contest the
basis of the rejection and violating the principles of natural justice. It
is also submitted that the applicant possesses a disability registration
certificate dated 09.02.2024 issued by the competent authority under
the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of
India and prayer was made to allow the OA and impugned order
dated 22.08.2024 be set aside.
7. Submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that the
applicant’s claim for continuation of family pension beyond the age of
25 years has been duly considered in accordance with the applicable
rules and Railway Board policy. It is submitted that, pursuant to the
applicant’s request, he was medically examined by the Chief Medical
Officer, Jhansi, and, on the basis of the medical examination report, he
was found capable of earning his livelihood despite his disability and,
therefore, not entitled to family pension. Learned counsel further
submits that the applicant was duly informed of the said decision and
his subsequent representations were also considered and replied to by
3
ASHISH
KUMAR

the respondents. Thus, there is no illegality or infirmity in the
impugned order dated 22.08.2024, and the Original Application, being
devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.
8. I have considered the rival submissions and gone through the
entire records.
9. Before discussing the submissions raised across the BAR, it
will be useful to quote the operative portion of the impugned order
dated 24.11.2021. The same is as under:-
.-
इस संबन्ध में आपको अवगत कराया जाता है कि रेलवे बोर्ड के पत्र सं
F(E)III/2005/PN1/32 - 24.08.2021 ( )
दिनांक प्रति संलग्न के

के आपको विकलांगता परीक्षण चिकित्सा
दिशानिर्देशों अनुरूप हेतु मुख्य
/
अधीक्षक झांसी के समक्ष भेजा गया था। मुख्य चिकित्सा अधीक्षक झॉसी

द्वारा प्राप्त विकलांगता प्रीक्षण रिपोर्ट के आप विकलांगता कोटि
अनुसार

में अपनी जीविका उपार्जन करने में सक्षम हैं। उक्त सम्बन्ध में आपको पूर्व

में भी अवगत कराया जा है।
चुका

अतः आप परिवार पेंशन पाने के पात्र नहीं है।
10. It will also be useful to reproduce the relevant para of the
opinion formed by the medical board in this matter. The same is as
under:-
The above named is examined by committee of three doctors and
they opined that patient is a case of B/L Profound hearing loss
mute. He is having disability of 70% (Certificate is also issued by
CMO/MBA Sr. No. 14/6286/17.02.2016 dated; - 02.09.2015 in
favour of him). He is not able to earn his livelihood in General
category, but he is able to earn his livelihood in disable category.
Please read his name Shri Basim Khan S/o Smt. Imaman Khatoon
in place of Shri Bashir Khan S/o Smt. Imaman Khatoon.

11. Perusal of the medical opinion itself reveals that the applicant is
suffering from bilateral profound hearing loss and muteness and has
70% disability. However, the opinion that he is able to earn his
livelihood in the “disabled category” does not disclose any assessment
of his actual functional or vocational capacity, the nature of work he is
capable of undertaking, or the manner in which he can earn his
livelihood despite the nature and extent of his disability. Merely
recording such a conclusion, without any specific assessment, cannot
4
ASHISH
KUMAR

be treated as sufficient consideration of the applicant’s claim under
Rule 54(6) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The impugned order
dated 22.08.2024 merely relies upon the aforesaid medical opinion
and does not contain any independent or reasoned consideration of the
applicant’s claim, particularly in the light of his disability certificate
dated 09.02.2024. We, therefore, find that the applicant’s claim has
not been considered in its proper perspective and the impugned order
cannot be sustained.
12. The Original Application is accordingly allowed. The
impugned order dated 22.08.2024 is hereby quashed and set aside.
The respondents are directed to reconsider the applicant’s claim for
grant/continuation of family pension afresh in accordance with Rule
54(6) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and the observations made
hereinabove. For such reconsideration, the respondents shall obtain a
fresh and specific medical assessment, if considered necessary,
regarding the applicant’s actual functional and vocational capacity to
earn his livelihood, keeping in view the nature and extent of his
disability, and thereafter pass a reasoned and speaking order within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of
this order. In case the applicant is found entitled to family pension, the
same shall be released to him, along with consequential benefits
admissible under rules, within a further period of two months. There
shall be no order as to costs.

(Justice Om Prakash VII)
Member (Judicial)

(Ashish)

5
ASHISH
KUMAR