Dismissed

Brijesh Kumar Mishra v. Union of India through General Manager (Establishment) and 4 Others

Allahabad HC16 Jul 2024WRIA/7416/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge court rejected a writ petition challenging the dismissal of a claim for family pension. Relying on a Medical Board opinion stating the petitioner can earn a livelihood despite 45% disability, the court held the Tribunal's rejection was valid under Rule 75(6) of the Railways Services (Pension) Rules, 1993.

What did the court decide?

Rejection of the claim for family pension and the writ petition were dismissed.

Brijesh Kumar Mishra vs Union of India… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:113314-DB

¶2

Chief Justice's Court

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7416 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Mishra Respondent :- Union Of India Through General Manager (Establishment) And 4 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Jitendra Kumar Tripathi,Lakhan Singh Kushwaha

¶6

Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Piyush Tripathi

¶7

Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶8

This writ petition is directed against order dated 16.02.2023 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad whereby the original application filed by the petitioner has been rejected.

¶9

The original application was filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the applicant with regard to grant of family pension as well as arrears after demise of his father. It was, inter alia , claimed that the petitioner was having 45% disability and his father had died on 12.01.2013, his mother pre deceased his father and on account of his physical disability, being eligible for grant of family pension, he applied. The opinion of the Chief Medical Officer and the Medical Board was obtained. The Medical Board gave opinion regarding the disability wherein it was indicated that though the petitioner has 45% disability in his right hand, he was mentally fit and rest of his body, was also normal. It was further indicated that even from the affected hand, he was able to read, write and make signatures and therefore, it cannot be said that he cannot earn his livelihood from the healthy portion of his body. Based on the said opinion of the

¶10

Medical Board, the application filed by the petitioner was rejected. Feeling aggrieved the original application was filed.

¶11

The tribunal after hearing the parties with reference to the report of the Medical Board, came to the conclusion that there was no substance in the application and consequently, dismissed the same.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the respondents and the Tribunal were not justified in rejecting the plea raised by the petitioner. Submissions were made that he had the disability to the extent of 45% and as such in terms of the provisions of the Railways Services (Pension) Rules 1993, he was eligible to get family pension and consequently, the orders deserve to be set aside.

¶13

Learned counsel for the respondents supported the order impugned.

¶14

We have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

¶15

The relevant provisions of the Railways Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 under Rule 75(6) provides that if the son or daughter of a railway servant is suffering from any disorder or disability of mind including mentally retarded or is physically crippled or disabled so as to render him or her unable to earn a living even after attaining the age of 25 years, the family pension shall be payable to such son or daughter. The provisions further provides that before allowing the family pension for life to any such son or daughter, the sanctioning authority shall satisfy that the handicap is of such so as to prevent him or her from earning his or her livelihood and the same shall be evidenced by a certificate obtained from a medical officer not below the rank of a Divisional Medical Officer setting out, as far as possible, the exact mental or

¶16

physical condition of the child.

¶17

Admittedly, the certificate produced after being examined by the Medical Board clearly opined that the petitioner was in a position to earn his livelihood despite the disability in one hand. The said opinion of the Medical Board has not been questioned rather the same has been relied on for the purpose of seeking the benefit of family pension.

¶18

In view of the categorical opinion of the Medical Board and the provisions as noticed hereinbefore, the rejection of petitioner's case and rejection of original application cannot be faulted. There is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.

¶19

Order Date :- 16.7.2024 Rajesh/SK

¶20

(Vikas Budhwar, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)

¶21

Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Brijesh Kumar Mishra v. Union of India through General Manager (Establishment) and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brijesh Kumar Mishra v. Union of India through General Manager (Establishment) and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India and Another vs Smt Sarita Singh

Swati Negi vs Vikas Verma and 2 Others

Raj Kumar vs State of Up and 3 Others

M/S Rifilis Engineering Pvt. Ltd. vs Presiding Officer Labour Court and Another

Ajit Shukla vs State of Up and 4 Others

Union of India and Another vs Smt Krishna Devi