Ramanand Ray vs The State Of Bihar & Ors.

Date : 10-08-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner; learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Accountant General, Bihar.

The petitioner in paragraph no. 1 of the present writ petition has sought, inter alia, the following relief(s), which is reproduced hereinafter:-

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State referring to letter No.198 dated 15.05.2026, addressed to the Executive Engineer, Vaishali Road Division, Hajipur by the Senior Account Officer, Bihar, submitted that in accordance with the Finance Department letter No. fo0 ¼27½ is dks 58 / 2024-416 dated 06/06/2025, the son of the petitioner is entitled for disability pension only after the death of the employee, who in the present case is his father, having retired in the year 2013.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent referring to Finance Department Letter No. एफ 0 (27) पी0 ए 0 58/2024-416 dated 06.06.2025, submitted that, in terms thereof, family pension cannot be granted to a dependent daughter/son during the lifetime of the original pensioner and that such entitlement would arise only upon the death of the original pensioner. It is further submitted that, in view of the aforesaid instructions, there is no requirement for inclusion of the name of a dependent disabled son during the lifetime of the pensioner. However, upon the death of both the father and mother, the applicant would be at liberty to raise his claim, which would be considered and decided in accordance with the applicable rules and Government circulars. Learned counsel further submitted that the aforesaid position is evident from the Finance Department letter, a copy whereof has been brought on record as Annexure-7 to the writ petition.

I find it apt to refer the Finance Department Letter No. एफ 0 (27) पी0 ए 0 58/2024-416 dated 06.06.2025, which is reproduced hereinafter:

I find that the petitioner’s son is a disabled person having been examined by the expert, who has assessed him as suffering from 50% loco motor disability, which is above the benchmark disability on the day information was given to respondent along with the certificate of disability prescribed under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

The issue is no longer res integra and is required to be considered in the light of the observation laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jeeja Ghosh & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors reported in (AIR 2016 SC 2393) wherein it was observed that persons with disabilities are entitled to enjoy the full range of internationally guaranteed rights and freedom without discrimination on the ground of disability. This creates an obligation on the part of the State to take positive measures to ensure that in reality, persons with disabilities get enabled to exercise those rights. The relevant paragraph of aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereinafter:

India is a signatory to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), an international human rights treaty of the United Nations, which seeks to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities. In furtherance of India's international obligations and with a view to give effect to the Convention, Parliament enacted the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 2016)” and the Central Government framed the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017. The said legislative framework must, therefore, be understood in the light of the constitutional commitment towards equality, dignity and social justice, including the mandate flowing from Articles 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India and the constitutional recognition of the importance of giving effect to international obligations under Article 253 of the Constitution of India.

Section 2(h) of the Act, 2016 defines “discrimination” as- “any distinction, exclusion, or restriction on the basis of disability which has the purpose or effect of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment, or exercise on an equal basis with others.”

The aforesaid provision has to be read harmoniously with Section 3(1), which guarantees equality and dignity to persons with disabilities; Section 3(3), which prohibits discrimination on the ground of disability; Section 3(5), which requires the State to take steps for reasonable accommodation; and Section 13, which recognizes the legal capacity of persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others, but they are to be treated in accordance with the provisions of RPWD Act.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Kunal Singh v. Union of India & Anr., reported in (2003) 4 SCC 524, has held that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 is a special legislation and, therefore, the doctrine of generalia specialibus non derogant would apply where there exists any provision which is inconsistent with or in derogation of the said Act, 2016. The relevant paragraph is, inter alia, reproduced hereinafter:

(emphasis supplied)

Now coming to the question as to whether, the non-inclusion of the dependent's name in the PPO is valid or not?

The Court is not unmindful of the decision laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Jodh Singh v. Union of India & Anr. reported in (1980) INSC 198, wherein the Apex Court held that a family pension can only be awarded posthumously. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced hereinafter:

(emphasis supplied)

However, the issue in the present case pertains strictly to the inclusion of the petitioner’s son’s name in the PPO as an eligible beneficiary, and not whether the family pension must be disbursed immediately. In case of Jodh Singh (supra) appellant was widow seeking family pension in which the Apex Court had answered the question that is involved in the present casein respect of eventuality which occured as a result of her husband here also in the case of the petitioner similarly the petitioner seeks inclusion of his name.

The Bihar Pension Rules, 1956 is silent regarding the inclusion of a disabled child for a lifelong family pension. However, under Rule 50(v) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021 explicitly provides for the inclusion of handicapped dependent in the family pension for life. Although via Finance Department letter No. No. एफ 0 (27) पी0 ए 0 58/2024-416 dated 06.06.2025, dated 06/06/2025 has made a dependent disabled child eligible for family pension but has not stated that the inclusion of any such dependent is only possible post the death of the retired employee.

The statutory framework under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, particularly Sections 3(1), 3(3), 3(5) and 13, with Articles 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India, leads to the conclusion that exclusion of the petitioner’s disabled son from the PPO, without due consideration of his statutory entitlement, cannot be viewed as a mere administrative or procedural omission. Such exclusion, if sustained, would be contrary not only to the express statutory mandate against discrimination on the ground of disability, but also to the constitutional guarantees of equality, dignity and non-discrimination. It would further be inconsistent with India’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), and contrary to the constitutional vision of a welfare State founded upon social justice and substantive equality.

The distinction between payment of family pension and recognition of the entitlement to receive such pension is of particular significance in the present case. The petitioner’s son is not seeking disbursement of family pension during the lifetime of his father. What is sought is recognition of his entitlement by inclusion of his name in the PPO, so that upon the death of the petitioner, who is presently his caretaker and is responsible for securing and asserting his rights, the disabled son shall not left without the institutional recognition necessary to avail the benefit to which he may otherwise be legally entitled. If his name is not included in the PPO at this stage, the consequence may be that, after the death of the petitioner, the very person, who presently safeguards and pursues his son’s entitlements would no longer be available to do so, thereby, exposing the disabled dependent to the risk of being practically excluded from or deprived of the benefit intended for him. Such an exclusion would defeat the substantive purpose of the protective legislation and would amount to impairment of the effective enjoyment of a legal right on the ground of disability, thereby offending not only the Act, 2016 and Articles 15 and 21 of the Constitution, but also the human-rights obligations embodied in the CRPD.

As per the available data, now as to the current status of disability aid that is conferred by the state to disabled people its imperative to compare the welfare schemes of other signatories of the UNDRP.

Singapore's social security scheme ComCare, administered by the Ministry of Social and Family Development, provides Long-Term Assistance to individuals permanently unable to work due to old age, illness, or disability who have little to no family support, with a single-person household under this scheme currently receiving S$640 per month alongside rental, utility, and medical subsidies. Beyond this general safety net, Singapore maintains targeted instruments operating independently of caregiver survival, such as the Interim Disability Assistance Programme for the Elderly, which disburses S$150 to S$250 monthly to severely disabled individuals.

The position under United States federal law provides for financial support and medical aid to the disabled under Title II of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. § 402(d)). Under the said Act, an adult child whose disability began before the age of 22 becomes eligible for a Disabled Adult Child benefit the moment the parent begins receiving their own Social Security retirement or disability benefit. While the parent is alive, the disabled adult child draws up to 50 percent of the parent's Primary Insurance Amount, which increases to 75 percent only after the parent's death.

The Central Civil Services Rules, 2021 particularly Rule 50(v) treats the parent's retirement. The exact milestone that occurred here when the petitioner superannuated in the year 2013, as the trigger to activate support for the disabled dependent, rather than requiring the petitioner (parent's) death to intervene, considering the expenditure which has escalated manifold, heading to monthly higher costs of living based and medical expenses for the disabled child or heir. Having regard to the prevailing increase in the cost of living and the continuing financial and medical needs of persons with disabilities, the underlying principle is that the retirement of a parent who is the primary caregiver cannot, by itself, operate to defer consideration of the dependent disabled child’s entitlement until the death of the parent. For better appreciation of the case, I find it apt to refer Rule 50 (v) which is reproduced hereinafter:

It is this underlying design principle,that the petitioner's case and like retired persons brings into sharp focus. The rules governing dependency pensions in India were constructed under historical assumptions regarding life expectancy and disability care. The service code and scheme’s have not kept pace with the changing times and intervention of the State was required long ago. The disabled dependent's needs are continuous, and a parent's retirement or advancing age requires for state support to begin during the life time of the parent, rather than an endpoint where official inquiry ceases until death occurs. The cost of this legal limbo on affected families is far from abstract. In a study published in Cureus Journal of Medical Science by Naaz et al., titled Psychosocial and Economic Burden on Families of Children With Cerebral Palsy, researchers evaluated 160 families and found that 52.5 percent reported a severe financial burden, while 46.9 percent reported a moderate burden. Notably, 60 percent of surveyed families stated that medical and therapeutic expenditures had a severely adverse impact on household finances. Existing state assistance offers little relief, central schemes like the Indira Gandhi National Disability Pension Scheme contributes a nominal Rs. 300 per month, a figure that has remained stagnant for years despite inflation. Even with state-level supplements under the Bihar Disability Pension Scheme, the total payout rarely exceeds Rs. 1,000 to Rs.1,500 per month. This Court has no hesitation in holding that the omission of the petitioner's son’s name from the PPO is manifestly arbitrary and cannot stand. Endorsing a dependent's name in a PPO is an administrative act of foresight, not an act of premature monetary disbursal.

Considering the aforesaid facts and legal position and constitutional binding, the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, is advised to give effect to the reliefs in terms and conditions of Section 13 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, if required, by bringing necessary amendment in the Bihar Pension Rules and give regard to letter No. Pen-03/25-2/648 dated 11.08.2025 of the Accountant General, Bihar contained in AnnexureP/ 5 to the writ petition.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.