Dependent parents’ family pension cannot be denied solely for omitted service records or agricultural income.

The applicants, the parents of Late Divyanshu Dubey, sought family pension after their unmarried son, a Railway employee, died in service.

Their claim was rejected on 2 September 2025, principally because the service records did not identify them as dependants and the father owned cultivable land and received ₹6,000 annually under PM-Kisan.

The Tribunal had earlier directed the respondents to decide the applicants’ representation by a reasoned order, considering the relevant Government instructions.

The applicants challenged the rejection in this O.A.

The judgment gives inconsistent dates for the employee’s death—18 July 2025 in its account of the applicants’ case and 18 July 2023 in the respondents’ account—and also refers once to the deceased as “Naveen Kumar.”

Whether the applicants, as the parents of an unmarried Railway employee who died in service, could claim family pension under the applicable pension rules, subject to the dependency requirements.

Whether the respondents could reject the claim solely on the basis of the service records’ failure to record the parents as dependants and the father’s landholding and PM-Kisan receipt.

The Tribunal relied on Rule 50(10) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 2026, under which, where a deceased railway servant is not survived by an eligible spouse or child, family pension may be payable to dependent parents for life; the rule deems parents dependent where their combined income is below the minimum family pension and admissible dearness relief.

It also referred to the Government of India Office Memorandum dated 5 March 1998 and Railway Board RBE No. 08/2020 dated 20 January 2020, which the earlier Tribunal order had required the respondents to consider.

The Tribunal accepted that the deceased was unmarried and that the applicants were his parents, making their claim one to be considered under Rule 50(10).

It held that the absence of a dependency entry in the service records, the father’s landholding, and the PM-Kisan payment were not, by themselves, conclusive grounds to deny family pension without assessing the claim under the specific rules governing dependent parents.

The rejection order therefore did not consider the claim in its proper legal perspective.

It directed the competent authority to allow the applicants’ family-pension claim, particularly in light of Rule 50(10) and the cited Government instructions, within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order; consequential benefits were to be extended in accordance with law if the applicants were found eligible.

No costs were awarded.