Step-son is ineligible for family pension as he falls outside the definition of "family" under Railway Pension Rules.

The second respondent (G. Chengalan) is the step-son of Late G. Kalaiselvi, a former Pointsman in the Southern Railway who died on 24.09.2008.

Following her death, the Railways settled the Gratuity in favor of the respondent under Rule 70 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993.

The respondent filed an Original Application (O.A. No. 409/2017) before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) seeking family pension, and the Tribunal granted the relief by relying on Rule 70.

The Union of India challenged this order via a Writ of Certiorari, contending that a step-son does not fall within the definition of "family" for pensionary purposes.

1. Whether a step-son is entitled to receive family pension under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993.

2. Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal erred in applying Rule 70 (relating to Gratuity) to justify the grant of family pension.

Rule 75 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, specifically the definition of "family" under Sub-Rule 19(b), defines family as including a spouse, judicially separated spouse (under specific conditions), and sons/unmarried daughters under the age of twenty-five, including those legally adopted before retirement.

Rule 70 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, allows a government servant to nominate "any person" to receive Death/Retirement Gratuity.

The High Court determined that the Central Administrative Tribunal committed a legal error by conflating the rules for gratuity with the rules for family pension.

While Rule 70 allows for the nomination of individuals beyond the immediate family for gratuity—which explained why the respondent successfully received the deceased's gratuity—family pension is governed strictly by the definition of "family" in Rule 75.

Upon examining Sub-Rule 19(b) of Rule 75, the Court found that the category of "step-son" is conspicuously absent from the exhaustive list of eligible family members (spouse, minor/unmarried biological children, and legally adopted children).

The Court reasoned that statutory benefits like family pension must be granted in strict adherence to the defined categories in the Pension Rules, and courts cannot expand this definition through analogy.

The Court allowed the Writ Petition, set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 07.06.2023, and closed all connected miscellaneous petitions with no order as to costs.