Disabled son earning livelihood as ‘Mazdoor’ ineligible for priority family pension over divorced daughter.

The applicant, a 40-year-old divorced daughter of Late Bhaskar Rao Yamgar (a deceased Railway employee), applied for a family pension following her father's death on 25.10.2018.

She argued she was divorced during her father's lifetime (03.02.2018) and was fully dependent on him.

The respondents rejected her claim via order dated 08.09.2023 [Annexure A-3] and instead released the pension in favor of respondent no. 4, the deceased's 52-year-old son, on the grounds of his 50% disability.

The applicant challenged this, asserting that respondent no. 4 had submitted an affidavit/income certificate declaring himself a "Mazdoor" (laborer), thereby proving he was capable of earning a livelihood.

1. Whether the grant of family pension to a disabled son who actively earns a livelihood as a 'Mazdoor' is legally sustainable under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993.

2. Whether the applicant, as a divorced daughter dependent on the deceased, has a valid claim for family pension over a disabled son who does not meet the livelihood criteria.

The court primarily applied Rule 75 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, particularly Rule 75(6)(iii), which governs the eligibility of children for family pension.

Railway Board Letter No. D-43/10/2022 F(E) III dated 08.07.2022, which clarifies that a disabled child is eligible for life-time family pension only if the handicap is of such a nature as to prevent them from earning a livelihood.

The precedent set by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Sudhir Sharma Vs. State of M.P. (W.P. No. 1672/2018), which emphasizes the capacity to earn as a disqualifying factor for such benefits.

The Tribunal found that while Rule 75 generally grants preference to disabled family members, such eligibility is strictly contingent upon the "livelihood criteria".

The court analyzed the evidence provided by respondent no. 4—specifically an affidavit and income certificate—where he self-identified as a "Mazdoor".

The Tribunal reasoned that if a person is capable of working as a laborer at age 52, it is logically inconsistent to claim they are unable to earn a livelihood due to disability.

The Tribunal observed that the respondents failed to conduct a proper verification regarding the actual impact of the 50% disability on the son's earning capacity.

Since respondent no. 4 was not dependent on the deceased and was actively earning, his prior claim over the applicant was deemed unjustified under the 1993 Rules and the 2022 Railway Board circular.

The Tribunal allowed the Original Application and set aside the impugned order dated 08.09.2023, directing the respondents to consider the applicant’s claim and release the family pension in her favor within two months.