While setting aside an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, the Madras High Court has held that under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, a Government servant may nominate any person to receive gratuity, but a step-son is not eligible to receive such pension.

The High Court was considering a Petition assailing the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench.

The Division Bench of Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice N. Senthilkumar held, “Under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, a Government servant may nominate any person for receiving gratuity. As far as family pension is concerned, it is to be granted strictly in accordance with the definition of “family” as contemplated under the Pension Rules. Step-son is not eligible to receive family pension under the Rules, in view of the definition, as stated above, and thus, the Order dated 07.06.2023 passed by the Central Administrate Tribunal, Madras Bench in O.A.No.409 of 2017 is set aside.”

Special Panel Counsel A.R. Sakthivel represented the Petitioner.

Factual Background

The respondent had filed an Original Application claiming family pension under the Railways Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. The respondent is the step-son of Late G.Kalaiselvi, who served in the Railways and died on September 24, 2008.

Arguments

It was the case of the Railways that gratuity due to the deceased employee had already been settled in his favour under Rule 70 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. According to the Railways, the respondent was not eligible for family pension in view of the definition of ‘family’ as stated under Rule 75 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993.

Reasoning

Referring to Rule 75 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, which talks about the Family Pension Scheme for Railway Servants, 1964, the Bench explained that as per the Rules, a Government servant may nominate any person to receive gratuity, but a step-son cannot receive family pension.

Thus, setting aside the Order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal granting pension, the Bench allowed the writ petition.

Cause Title: Union of India v. The Registrar (Case No.: W.P.NO.26142 OF 2024)

Click here to read/download Order


Madras HCJustice SM SubramaniamJustice N Senthil Kumar

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

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.