AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
By Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (Judicial) Shri Pradeep Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Raj Pal Singh, learned counsel for the respondents are present.
By means of this OA, the applicants have sought the following reliefs :
“(i)To Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 17.04.2025 passed by Respondent No.3 rejecting the applicants' claim for family pension, the same being arbitrary, illegal and contrary to Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, DoP&PW OM dated 05.03.1998, RBE No. 08/2020 dated 20.01.2020, and DoP&T OM dated 12.10.2017 (adopted by Railway Board 30.11.2017).
(ii)Issue an order or directions in the appropriate nature commanding to the Respondent No.2 to grant the family pension under the rules w.e.f. 11.8.2016 and post death dues to the applicants.
(iii)Issue an order or directions in the appropriate nature commanding to the Respondent No.2 to pay the arrear of pension with 12% compound interest to the applicants.
(iv)Issue any further orders or direction, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(v)Award the appropriate cost in favour of the applicant.”
The brief facts of the case are that the applicants are the parent (mother and father) of the deceased employee who died during the service period on 10.08.2016 and was unmarried. The applicants claim is that parent of the deceased employee will be entitled for family pension if at the time of death of the employee concerned the wife as well as children of the deceased employee are not alive or deceased employee died unmarried. Firstly, the mother will be entitled for family pension and in case mother is not alive then father. Referring to the provision of Sub Rule 10 of Rule 50 of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 2026 as well as RBE No.08/2020, it has been pleaded that the respondents’ observation in the impugned order is illegal. Thus, prayer is made to allow the OA and set aside the impugned order directing the respondents to issue family pension in favour of Applicant No.1.
Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents admitting that employee concerned was working under the respondents’ department and he died during the service period on 10.08.2016. He was unmarried but the applicants do not come under the definition of dependent, thus, there is no illegality in the impugned order. The respondents has also relied upon the office Memorandum dated 03.06.2021 issued by DOP&T and argued that the applicant will only be entitled if their monthly income is less than Rs.9000/-per month. In the present matter, on the basis of inquiry made by competent authority it was found that the applicant has sufficient means for their survival. Thus, requested to dismiss the OA.
Rejoinder affidavit has also filed by the applicant stating almost same facts as given in the OA and no new ground has been taken.
I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants at this stage itself.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicant’s son namely Naveen Kumar died during the service period on 10.08.2016 and he was unmarried. The applicants being dependent on the income of the deceased employee are entitled for family pension. To substantiate this argument, learned counsel for the applicants relied upon the provision of Sub Rule 10 of Rule 50 of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 2026, which is reproduced as below :-
“(10)(a) Where a deceased railway servant or pensioner is not survived by a widow or widower or a child eligible for family pension or if the widow or widower and all children cease to be eligible for family pension, the family pension at the rate specified in sub-rule (2) shall be payable to the parents for life, if the parents were dependent on the railway servant or pensioner immediately before his or her death.
(b)The family pension, wherever admissible to parents shall be payable to the mother of the deceased railway servant or pensioner failing which to the father of the deceased railway servant or pensioner.
Explanation, Parents shall be deemed to be dependent on the railway servant if their combined income is less than the minimum family pension under sub-rule (1) and the dearness relief admissible thereon.
(c)It shall be the duty of parents to furnish a certificate to the Pension Disbursing Authority once in a year that they have not started earning their livelihood and the family pension payable to parents shall be stopped if they start earning their livelihood.”
Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the applicants were not dependent on the income of the deceased employee. They have sufficient means for their livelihood and they are also excluded from the definition of family as per OM dated 03.06.2021 issued by DOP&T (Annexure-CR-1). Thus, there is no illegality in the impugned order.
I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the entire record.
Admittedly, there is no dispute between the parties that deceased employee namely Naveen Kumar who was working under the respondents’ department died during service period and was unmarried. Since deceased employee was unmarried and died issueless in that situation as per provision of Sub Rule 10 (a) of Rule 50 of Railway Services (Pension) Rule, 2026 parent of the deceased employee would be entitled for family pension. It further appears that the applicant had approached before this Tribunal through the OA No.667 of 2022, which was decided on 17.02.2025 and following direction was issued to the respondents, which is reproduced as below :-
“With the consent of parties counsel and considering the facts and grounds raised in the O.A., this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending. Hence, OA is disposed of with direction to the competent authority amongst the respondents to consider the case of applicants for family pension after considering representation dated 20.04.2021 (annexure A-6) by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. While passing the order on the aforesaid representation, the respondents will also consider the Railway Board instructions dated 26.02.2019 and RBE No. 08/2020 dated 20.01.2020 (Annexure A-5 of the O.A.). The order so passed on the aforesaid representation of the applicant, shall be communicated to the applicants forthwith. It is made clear that this Tribunal has not gone into merits of the case. No order as to costs.”
It also appears that in compliance of the direction given in the aforesaid OA, the impugned order has been passed and the claim of the applicants has been rejected. It was observed that under NPS Scheme only the wife and children of the deceased employee will be extended relief but not on the basis of Railway Services (Pension) Rule, 1993 and under the NPS Scheme parent of the deceased employee are not entitled for family pension. If the observations recorded in the impugned order are taken into consideration even in the case that deceased employee was under NPS Scheme in that situation also wife and children as well as parent will be entitled for family pension. At the most while granting the family pension to the entitled person, the respondents may direct to surrender the amount deposited by the Government in the account of the deceased employee under NPS Scheme and thus observation recorded in the impugned order is not sustainable. The OA is liable to be allowed and impugned order dated 17.04.2025 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the OA is allowed. The competent authority amongst the respondents is directed to allow the family pension to the applicant No.1 (mother of the deceased employee) in accordance with law after fulfilling the entire formalities. This exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. No order as to costs.
All associated MAs also stand disposed of.