Ten years’ qualifying service is not required for family pension after one year of continuous railway service.

The applicant’s husband was appointed to railway service on compassionate grounds on 29 October 1999.

After an accident and a period of absence, he was removed from service on 30 March 2012; he died on 27 May 2012.

The Tribunal later set aside the disciplinary and appellate orders and directed imposition of a lesser penalty. The appellate authority consequently substituted compulsory retirement for removal.

The respondents paid certain benefits or began processing them but denied family pension, asserting that the deceased had only 5 years, 4 months and 25 days of qualifying service.

The applicant sought family pension and admissible terminal benefits

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to family pension despite the respondents’ contention that her husband had rendered less than ten years of qualifying service

2. Whether the respondents were required to recalculate the deceased employee’s qualifying service and release admissible terminal benefits after removal was substituted with compulsory retirement

The Tribunal applied Rule 50 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 2026, under which the family of a railway servant who dies after completing one year of continuous service is entitled to family pension.

It also applied Rule 40, which permits pension, retirement gratuity, or both to be granted to a railway servant compulsorily retired as a penalty, subject to the prescribed limits.

The Tribunal noted that the 1993 Rules had been replaced by the 2026 Rules and considered the applicant’s claim under the latter.

It relied on Mala Devi v. Union of India & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 10672 of 2016, decided 16 July 2025, and Smt. Chandrakala v. Union of India & Ors., OA No. 439 of 2013, decided 19 October 2023, as authorities supporting the family-pension claim.

The Tribunal found that the deceased had been appointed to a permanent post, had served for more than one year, and died during the period of his service. It therefore rejected the respondents’ reliance on the asserted ten-year qualifying-service threshold, holding that the requirements of Rule 50 and the principles in Mala Devi and Smt. Chandrakala supported family pension.

As removal had been set aside and replaced by compulsory retirement, the Tribunal also directed the respondents to reconsider qualifying service, including the period between the original removal order and the imposition of compulsory retirement, and then determine the admissible terminal benefits.

The respondents were directed to grant family pension and to recalculate and release the admissible retiral benefits, after adjusting any sums already paid, within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order.

No order as to costs was made, and the associated miscellaneous applications were disposed of.