Family pension claim for disabled dependents cannot be rejected via medical reports lacking specialized assessments or reasonable accommodation considerations.

The applicant, a 46-year-old physically disabled man, is the son of Late Shri Lal Gupta, a former Head Signaler with the North Central Railway

Following his father’s death in 2020, the applicant sought a family pension under the category of a disabled dependent

His claim was rejected via an order dated 12.12.2022 based on a medical report from the Chief Medical Superintendent, Jhansi

The report stated that while the applicant could not earn a livelihood in the "General category," he was capable of doing so in the "disabled category"

The applicant challenged this rejection, producing a disability certificate from Agra assessing him with 80% permanent disability due to Hypertrophy Muscular Dystrophy, a progressive disease

1. Whether the medical report issued by the respondents, which categorized earning capacity into "General" and "disabled" categories, is legally sustainable for determining eligibility for family pension

2. Whether the respondents' rejection of the family pension claim complied with the procedural and substantive requirements of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993

The court primarily applied Clause 75(6)(d) and Clause 75(6)(f)(2) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, which mandate that a disabled son/daughter is eligible for family pension for life if their handicap prevents them from earning a livelihood, evidenced by a certificate from a specialized Medical Board

The court also invoked the spirit and objectives of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, specifically the principle of "reasonable accommodation" and the protection of persons with benchmark disabilities

The Tribunal found the respondents' medical report to be "undesirable" and "unsustainable" as it lacked a detailed assessment by a specialized Medical Board as required by Clause 75(6)(d)

The court observed that the applicant suffers from an 80% permanent disability due to a progressive muscular disorder, which significantly contradicts the casual observation by the medical authority that he could earn a living in a "disabled category"

The Tribunal reasoned that the language used in the impugned report was inconsistent with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016

It emphasized that eligibility depends on three criteria: dependency, kinship, and a disability that prevents earning a living, none of which were adequately or fairly assessed by the respondents' vague categorization of livelihood

It directed the respondents to constitute an independent medical board, including an Orthopedic specialist at the Agra Division, to conduct a fresh medical examination of the applicant based on his 80% disability certificate

The respondents were ordered to pass a reasoned and speaking order following the board's opinion within two months

No costs were awarded