A medical opinion of earning capacity alone cannot bar a disabled dependent’s consideration for family pension.

The applicant claimed to be the son of a retired Railway employee who died in 1995. His mother died in 2016, after which he sought family pension on the basis of an 80% disability certificate.

The Railway Medical Board did not dispute his disability but recorded that he was capable of earning a livelihood. By order dated 31 May 2022, the respondents rejected his claim on that basis. The applicant challenged that order before the Tribunal

1. Whether the Railway could deny the applicant consideration for family pension solely because a medical report stated that he was capable of earning a livelihood despite his established disability

2. Whether the order dated 31 May 2022 rejecting the applicant’s claim should be set aside and his eligibility reconsidered under the applicable pension rules

The Tribunal relied on Rule 50 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 2026, under which it directed reconsideration of the applicant’s claim

It also relied on Om Prakash v. Ministry of Indian Railway, 149 (2008) DLT 599, and the Tribunal’s decision in Ashok v. Union of India & Others, OA No. 1009/2012, decided on 19 May 2026, for the principle that a disabled dependent child who is unable to maintain himself may be considered for family pension under the applicable rules

The applicant’s 80% disability was not disputed by the Railway medical officers. The Tribunal therefore held that the medical report’s general observation about his capacity to earn a livelihood could not, by itself, justify rejecting his claim.

Applying the cited authorities, it concluded that the respondents had to assess the applicant’s claim under the applicable rules rather than treat that observation as conclusive

It directed the respondents to reconsider the applicant’s case for inclusion in Form No. 06 and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with Rule 50 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 2026, within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order. The Tribunal did not directly award family pension or arrears; there was no order as to costs.