A disabled dependent’s potential employability alone cannot justify denial of family pension.

The applicant, the son of a deceased Railway employee, has a 60% permanent physical disability caused by post-polio residual paralysis affecting both lower limbs. His name was recorded in his father’s Pension Payment Order (PPO) as a physically disabled son.

After the deaths of his father on 20 December 2016 and mother on 3 October 2017, he sought family pension from 4 October 2017.

The respondents rejected his claim on 28 November 2023, relying on a Medical Board’s opinion that he could earn a livelihood in the disability category, although he could not do so in the general category. He challenged that decision before the Tribunal.

1. Whether the respondents’ rejection of the applicant’s family-pension claim, based on the Medical Board’s statement that he could earn a livelihood in the disability category, was sustainable.

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to consideration for family pension from 4 October 2017 under the applicable Railway Services (Pension) Rules.

The Tribunal applied Rule 50(9)(h) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 2026, which provides for family pension for life to a son or daughter with a qualifying disability that renders them unable to earn a livelihood after attaining 25 years, subject to prescribed conditions, including that the disability existed before the deaths of the railway servant or pensioner and their spouse.

The Tribunal also relied on its decision in Prem Narayan v. Union of India and Others, O.A. No. 1008/2022, for the principle that a bare medical observation that a disabled person can earn a livelihood is not, by itself, sufficient to deny consideration for family pension where the disability is established.

It referred to the Delhi High Court’s decision in Om Prakash v. The Ministry of Indian Railway in support of considering a disabled dependent child unable to maintain himself under the applicable rules.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s permanent disability was established, existed during his parents’ lifetimes, and was recorded in the PPO.

The Medical Board had acknowledged that he could not earn a livelihood in the general category. Its further statement that he could do so in the disability category did not establish his actual capacity to earn a livelihood.

Applying Rule 50(9)(h) and the reasoning in Prem Narayan, the Tribunal held that this statement alone could not justify rejecting the claim.

It directed the respondents to consider and sanction family pension with effect from 4 October 2017, subject to fulfilment of the conditions in Rule 50(9)(h), and to release admissible consequential benefits.

The exercise was to be completed within three months of receipt of a certified copy of the order. No costs were awarded.