Family pension claims by disabled children require specific functional assessment and a reasoned determination of livelihood capacity.

The applicant’s father, Sakbar Khan, a Railway Gangman, died in harness in 2002.

The applicant’s mother was subsequently appointed on compassionate grounds but died in harness on 1 March 2005.

Family pension was thereafter sanctioned for the applicant and his sister as minors.

The applicant, who has bilateral profound hearing loss and muteness with 70% disability, received disability family pension until he attained 25 years, after which it was stopped in October 2017.

He sought restoration of the pension through representations.

Pursuant to the Railway Board’s policy dated 24 August 2021, he was medically examined by the Chief Medical Officer, Jhansi.

The medical opinion recorded that he was unable to earn a livelihood in the general category but could earn in the “disabled category”.

Relying on that opinion, the respondents rejected his claim on the ground that he was capable of earning his livelihood despite his disability.

The applicant challenged the rejection order dated 22 August 2024 before the Tribunal, contending that the medical assessment was vague and that the order did not properly consider his claim under Rule 54(6) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

Whether the applicant’s claim for continuation or restoration of family pension beyond the age of 25 years was required to be considered under Rule 54(6) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, applicable to a disabled son or daughter unable to earn a livelihood due to disability.

Whether the respondents’ rejection of the claim, based on the medical opinion that the applicant could earn a livelihood in the “disabled category,” was legally sustainable in the absence of a specific assessment of his actual functional and vocational capacity.

Whether the impugned order was adequately reasoned and passed in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal applied Rule 54(6) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which permits continuation of family pension beyond the prescribed age for a disabled son or daughter who is unable to earn a livelihood because of the disability.

The decision also applied the principles of reasoned decision-making and procedural fairness, requiring the competent authority to meaningfully assess the claimant’s actual capacity to earn and to provide an intelligible basis for rejecting the claim.

A bare medical conclusion, without examining the claimant’s functional and vocational capabilities in light of the nature and extent of the disability, is insufficient.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s medical condition—bilateral profound hearing loss and muteness, assessed at 70% disability—was undisputed.

However, the medical opinion merely stated that he could earn his livelihood in the “disabled category,” without identifying the work he could perform, his functional limitations, or how he could actually earn a livelihood despite his disability.

The respondents’ order simply relied on this conclusion and did not independently consider the applicant’s claim under Rule 54(6), including his disability certificate dated 9 February 2024.

Since the assessment did not address the relevant statutory question—whether the applicant was unable to earn a livelihood because of his disability—the rejection was neither sufficiently reasoned nor based on a proper evaluation of the applicant’s entitlement.

The respondents were directed to reconsider afresh the applicant’s claim for grant or continuation of family pension under Rule 54(6) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

If necessary, they were to obtain a fresh and specific medical assessment of the applicant’s actual functional and vocational capacity to earn a livelihood, considering the nature and extent of his disability, and pass a reasoned and speaking order within three months of receiving the certified copy of the judgment.

If found entitled, the applicant was to be paid the family pension and consequential admissible benefits within a further two months.

No order as to costs was made.