Eligible disabled children take priority over widowed daughters for railway family pension.

The applicant, a widowed daughter of a former Railway employee, was sanctioned family pension in 2016 after her mother’s death and received it for approximately six years and nine months.

The Railway authorities stopped payment in 2023 after her brother, Respondent No. 7, claimed entitlement as a person with a 50% disability.

The authorities stated that the applicant had not disclosed his disability and had omitted her elder widowed sister from the next-of-kin certificate.

The applicant disputed the validity of her brother’s disability documents and denied any deliberate concealment.

She sought to quash the stoppage letter and obtain restoration of pension and arrears.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to continuation or restoration of family pension after Respondent No. 7 claimed it as a physically disabled child of the deceased employee.

2. Whether the Railway authorities’ decision to stop the applicant’s pension warranted interference by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal applied Ministry of Railways Office Memorandum RBE No. 116/2007 dated 18 September 2007.

As described in the decision, family pension for an unmarried, widowed or divorced daughter above 25 years is payable only after other eligible children below 25 cease to qualify and where there is no disabled child entitled to receive the pension.

The Tribunal treated a physically disabled child as having priority over a widowed daughter under this scheme.

No statute or judicial precedent was relied upon.

The Tribunal accepted that Respondent No. 7 had a 50% disability and concluded that, under the 2007 Office Memorandum, he had priority over the applicant, a widowed daughter.

It also noted the omission of the applicant’s elder widowed sister from the next-of-kin certificate and referred to a representation allegedly made by the applicant’s mother in 2010 seeking pension for Respondent No. 7.

On that basis, it found no reason to interfere with the authorities’ decision, notwithstanding the applicant’s challenges to the disability documents and the alleged representation.

Any pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of, any interim order was vacated, and no costs were awarded.