Mere Married Status Of 100% Disabled Son Of Deceased Employee Not Ground To Dislodge His Entitlement For Family Pension Under CCS (Pension) Rules: Allahabad High Court

Tulip Kanth

24 Aug 2025 5:30 PM IST

The writ petition before the Allahabad High Court was filed against the order whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the Original Application filed by the Petitioner.

The Allahabad High Court has ordered the reconsideration of the family pension claim of a blind son of a Railway Department’s deceased employee. The High Court held that the mere married status of the 100% disabled son could not be a ground to dislodge his entitlement to family pension.

The writ petition before the High Court was filed against the order whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad, dismissed the Original Application filed by the Petitioner challenging the order holding him ineligible to receive family pension.

Referring to Explanation 1 to sub-Rule (6) of Rule 54 of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra stated, “We further find that amended Explanation 1, quoted above, clarifies that a married son, except a disabled son, shall become ineligible for family pension. It, therefore, follows that mere married status of the petitioner, who is 100% disabled son of the deceased employee, could not be a ground to dislodge his entitlement for family pension.We may also observe here that neither the Tribunal nor Department has considered the aforesaid legal position while deciding the claim of the petitioner and the consideration made is based upon only and only applicability of Circular dated 15.01.2010 and on no other ground.”

Advocate Syed Mushfiq Ali represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Gaurav Bishan appeared for the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioner’s father was working in the respondent’s Department. He retired in the year 2002 and was drawing pensionary benefits. He died in the year 2015. The case of the petitioner was that he is 100% disabled (blind) and he also possessed a certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer. When the petitioner moved application in the Department for getting family pension based upon his disability, his application was rejected by applying a Circular dated January 15, 2010 on the ground that the petitioner being a married son of the deceased-employee, was not entitled to receive family pension, even if he was physically disabled person.

Challenge to the order rejecting the petitioner’s claim was laid before the Tribunal on the ground that, in view of Railway Board’s letter RBE No. 22 of 2016 dated February 24, 2016, the petitioner was entitled for family pension and the Department had erred in relying upon Circular issued in the year 2010, which lost its efficacy with issuance of subsequent Circular/letter. The Tribunal dismissed the application by recording a finding that the earlier Circular providing that married sons and daughters, whether suffering from any disorder/disability, were not eligible for family pension would remain applicable. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the High Court.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that as per Clause 5 of Railway Board’s letter dated July 8, 2022, a disabled son or daughter, who is already married or who gets married, can be sanctioned family pension for life subject to livelihood criteria and if no other family member is having prior claim for family pension, as per provisions of Rules of 1993.

The Bench stated, “A bare perusal of aforesaid Clauses of Rule 75(6) of Rules, 1993 would reveal that an unmarried son, until he attains the age of twenty-five years or until he gets married or until he starts earning his livelihood would become eligible for family pension, but since the respondents themselves have clarified by way of RBE No. 12 of 2013 dated 11.02.2013 and Office Memorandum dated 16.01.2013 that amended Rule 54 of Rules, 1972 would mutatis mutandis apply on the Railways and would correspond to sub-Rules (6), (17) and (18) of Rule 75 of the Rules, 1993, we are of the view that sub-Rule (6)(ii) of Rule 75 shall have to be read along with RBE No. 12 of 2013 dated 11.02.2013 and Office Memorandum dated 16.01.2013 and not in isolation.”

The Bench held, “Once we have arrived at a conclusion that married status of the petitioner, in itself, is not sufficient to deny family pension, the other requirements of law have to be examined by the Department for deciding the petitioner’s claim for family pension.”

Thus, allowing the Petition, the Bench set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter for reconsideration of the petitioner’s claim on merits other than the applicability of 2010 Circular.

Cause Title: Iftikhar Ali v. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:137278-DB)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate Syed Mushfiq Ali

Respondent: Additional Solicitor General of India, Gaurav Bishan

Click here to read/download Order

Related Tags :

Tulip Kanth

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.