Sanctioned family pension cannot be withheld from a 100% visually disabled dependent son on hypertechnical grounds.

The applicant’s father, a Safai Karamchari with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, retired on 30 September 2017 after more than 33 years of service and was receiving pension.

The applicant’s mother had predeceased his father.

After the father’s death on 22 August 2021, the applicant, a 100% visually disabled dependent son, applied for family pension and submitted the documents required by the respondents.

Upon the respondents’ failure to process the claim, the applicant filed OA No. 145/2022, which was disposed of with directions to pass a reasoned order.

The respondents thereafter sanctioned family pension in the applicant’s favour with effect from 23 August 2021, by order dated 14 November 2022.

However, the Administrative Officer subsequently issued an order dated 7 December 2023 stating that the application could not be considered at that stage, primarily due to alleged non-completion of documentation/formalities.

During the present proceedings, the Tribunal directed the applicant to visit the respondents’ office to complete the remaining formalities.

The respondents subsequently confirmed that the documents had been received and the case file had been forwarded to Pension Headquarters for further processing.

Whether the respondents’ order dated 7 December 2023, declining to process the applicant’s family-pension claim despite the earlier sanction dated 14 November 2022, was liable to be quashed.

Whether the respondents should be directed to complete the remaining administrative formalities and release family pension and arrears to the applicant, a 100% visually disabled dependent son, with effect from 23 August 2021.

The Tribunal applied the beneficial principles governing family pension for a disabled dependent child and treated family pension as a social-security entitlement intended to protect the dignity and sustenance of the dependent, rather than as a discretionary charity or bounty.

It relied on Chiti Babu Dora v. Union of India & Ors., OA No. 426/2020, decided by the Cuttack Bench of the Tribunal on 3 March 2022, which held that denial of family pension to a 100% visually disabled dependent son on hyper-technical or arbitrary grounds is inconsistent with the protective purpose of pension provisions and the right to dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Tribunal also proceeded on the basis that, once the applicant’s entitlement had been sanctioned, only lawful completion of the remaining administrative formalities was required before release of the pensionary benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s status as a 100% visually disabled dependent son was undisputed and that his claim for family pension had already been sanctioned with effect from 23 August 2021.

The respondents’ earlier objection concerned documentation, particularly Form 10, and not the substantive entitlement to family pension.

Since the applicant had subsequently completed the required formalities and the respondents had forwarded the complete file to Pension Headquarters, the continued operation of the order dated 7 December 2023 could not be justified.

Applying the beneficial approach mandated in Chiti Babu Dora, the Tribunal held that procedural or administrative deficiencies should not defeat the sustenance of a disabled dependent, particularly when the respondents had already accepted and sanctioned the claim.

It directed the respondents, particularly the Administrative Officer, Pension Headquarters, MCD, to finalise the applicant’s case and release the family pension along with arrears, after completing the necessary formalities in accordance with law, within eight weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

The OA was disposed of on these terms, with no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of.