Ajay Kumar vs Secy. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj, U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:31199-DB

Court No. - 1

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 158 of 2025 Appellant :- Ajay Kumar Respondent :- Secy. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj, U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Durga Prasad Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- Ran Vijay Singh,C.S.C.,Uday Veer Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

¶5

Order on C.M. Application No. Nil of 2025

¶6

The intra court appeal arising out of the judgment and order dated 8.1.2025 is delayed by 67 days.

¶7

An application for condonation of delay duly supported with an affidavit has been filed by the State along-with the appeal.

¶8

Reasons in detail have been spelt out in the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application to which there is no objection.

¶9

In absence of any objection and the cause shown being sufficient, the delay in filing the present intra court appeal is condoned and the application is allowed.

¶10

Order on Appeal

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Ran Vijay Singh learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1, Mr. Kumar Shambhav learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 5 and Sri Uday Veer Singh learned counsel

¶12

Page No. 1 of 6

¶13

who has put in appearance on beahlf of the opposite party nos. 3 and 4.

¶14

The present intra court appeal is directed against the judgment/order dated 8.1.2025 passed by the writ court in Writ A No. 2546/2023 whereby the claim of the appellant for grant of family pension has been rejected.

¶15

The claim for family pension was made by the appellant before the writ court on the ground that the appellant is disabled son of the deceased pensioner. The writ court while rejecting the claim of the appellant has observed that once the competent medical officer has opined that the petitioner’s disability is not such so as to render him unable to earn his livelihood on account of the deformity/ disability, therefore, he cannot claim the benefit of family pension. The writ court further observed that the case put up by the appellant is not covered by the government order dated 15.6.2022 wherein it is clearly mentioned that it is the competent medical officer who has to opine, as to whether a physically handicapped person is completely unable to earn his livelihood or not.

¶16

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is a disabled person and is totally dependent on his parents since birth. The appellant after death of his mother on 14.8.2022 applied for grant of family pension

¶17

Page No. 2 of 6

¶18

on 18.10.2022 through Online and also submitted an application on 16.1.2023 in the office of the opposite party no. 3 i.e. Basic Education Officer, district Barabanki. The opposite party no. 3 called for a report from the Chief Medical Officer, Barabanki and in pursuance thereof a report was submitted on 27.12.2022 clearly indicating that the appellant’s disability is to the extent of 55% and is not in a position to work properly to earn his livelihood. When nothing was done in the matter, the appellant made a complaint to the District Magistrate, Barabanki. The District Magistrate called for a report from the opposite party no. 3 i.e. Basic Education Officer, Barabanki. The opposite party no. 3 again called for a report from the Chief Medical Officer, Barabanki. The Chief Medical Officer submitted a report on 6.2.2023 stating that the disability of the appellant is 55% which is related to movement process and the appellant is unable to do his work fully to earn his livelihood. Learned counsel submitted that the writ court has not properly considered the contradictory medical reports submitted by the Chief Medical Officer.

¶19

Learned counsel for the respondents has stated that as per the disability certificate, the disability of the appellant is 55% and the Chief Medical Officer, Barabanki in his report has clearly stated that the appellant is not a completely disabled person to earn his livelihood.

¶20

Page No. 3 of 6

¶21

Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon the government order dated 15.6.2022 of which Para No. 3 clearly indicates that the disabled children of the deceased employee/pensioner are liable to get family pension for whole life if the appointing authority is satisfied that disability is of such a nature that he is unable to earn his livelihood which is evident from the contents of the para 3 of the government order as under :-

¶22

सेवानि�वृत्त/मृत्तकम�चारी/पेंश�रों की मानसिक या शारीरिककी मानसिक या शारीरिकमा�सिसकयाशारीरिरक नि�ःशक् त ासेग्रस्त (निवकलांग) संता�की मानसिक या शारीरिकपारिरवारिरकपेंश�की मानसिक या शारीरिक देयताकेलिलए आय के मानदण्ड के सम्बन्ध में भारत सरकारआयकेमा�दण्ड के सम्बन्ध में भारत सरकारकेसम्बन्ध में भारत सरकारमेंभारतसरकार, कार् म िक, लोकशिशकायतए आय के मानदण्ड के सम्बन्ध में भारत सरकारवंपेंश�मंत्रालय, पेंश�औरपेंश�भोगी कल्याण विभागनिवभाग, �ई दिल्ली द्वारा निर्गत कार्यालयनिदल्लीद्वारानि�ग�तकाया�लय-ज्ञाप�संख्या1/17/2019पीए आय के मानदण् ड के सम्बन्ध मे ं पीड के सम् ब न्ध में भारत सरकारल्यू (ई दिल्ली द्वारा निर्गत कार्यालय), निद�ांक 08 फरवरी, 2021 केप्रस्तर- 3, 4 ए आय के मानदण्ड के सम्बन्ध में भारत सरकारवं 6 मेंदीगयीव्यवस्थानि�म्�वतहैः“3उक्तकेक्रममेंयहनि�ण विभाग�यलिलयागयाहैनिक निदवंगतसरकारीकम�चारी/पेंश�भोगीकामा�सिसक याशारीरिरकनि�ःशक् त ासेग्रस्तबच्चा/सहोदर, जीव�पय�न्तकुटुंबपेंश�पा�ेकापात्रहोगा, यनिद नि�युनिक्तप्राधिध में भारत सर क ारारीकायहसमाध में भ ा रत सरकार�होजाताहै निकनि�ःशक् त ाऐसीप्रकृधितकी मानसिक या शारीरिकहै, सिजसकेकारण विभाग वहअप�ीआजीनिवकाकमा�ेमेंअसमथ�है, जैसा निकसक्षमधिचनिकत्साप्राधिध में भारत सर क ारारीसेप्राप्त प्रमाणपत्रप्रमाण विभागपत्र सेसाक्ष्यिKयतहै। यह माना जाएगा कि ऐसा बच्चायहमा�ाजाए आय के मानदण्ड के सम्बन्ध में भारत सरकारगानिकऐसाबच्चा अप�ी उपाज करता जीनिवका �हीं करता है है, यनिद कुटुंबपेंश�केअलावाअन्यस्रोतों की मानसिक या शारीरिकसेउसकी मानसिक या शारीरिक कुलआयसम्बक्ष्यिन्ध में भार त सरकारीकम�चारी/पेंश�भोगी केनिदवंगतहो�ेपर, साध में भ ा रत सरकाररण विभागदर परदेयकुटुंब पेंश�औरउसपरस्वीकाय�मंहगाई दिल्ली द्वारा निर्गत कार्यालयराहतसे कमहै। यह माना जाएगा कि ऐसा बच्चा

¶23

Page No. 4 of 6

¶24

सरकारी तद�ुसार, निदवंगत कम�चारी/पेंश�भोगी का ऐसा बच्चा/सहोदर, जो मा�सिसकयाशारीरिरकनि�ःशक् त ासेग्रस्तहै, जीव�पय�न्तकुटुंबपेंश�पा�ेकापात्रहोगा, यनिद वहअन्यों की मानसिक या शारीरिककेसाथनि�म्�शतO कोपू राकरता हैः-

¶25

(i) सक्षम धिचनिकत्सका प्राधिध में भारत सर क ारारी द्वारा नि�ःशकत् त ाप्रमाण विभागपत्रजारीनिकयागयाहै। यह माना जाएगा कि ऐसा बच्चा (ii) कुटुंबपेंश�केअलावाअन्यस्रोतों की मानसिक या शारीरिक सेनि�ःशक्तबच्चेकी मानसिक या शारीरिकसमग्रआयसाध में भ ा रत सरकाररण विभाग दरपरस्वीकाय�कुटुंबपेंश� (अथा�त् मृतमृत सरकारीकम�चारी/पेंश�भोगीद्वाराआहरिरत अंधितमवेत�का 30 प्रधितशत) औरउस परस्वीकाय�मंहगाई दिल्ली द्वारा निर्गत कार्यालयरातसेकमहै। यह माना जाएगा कि ऐसा बच्चा

¶26

ऐसेमामलों की मानसिक या शारीरिकमें, जहांपू व�आयमा�दंड के सम्बन्ध में भारत सरकारको पू रा�कर�ेकेकारण विभागमा�सिसकयाशारीरिरक नि�ःशक् त ा से ग्रस्त निकसी बच्चे/सहोदर को वत�मा�मेंकुटुंबपेंश��हीं करता हैनिमलरहीहै, ऐसे बच्चे/सहोदरकोकुटुंबपेंश�दीजासकतीहै, यनिदवहउपरोक्तआयमा�दंड के सम्बन्ध में भारत सरकारकोपू राकरताहै औरसरकारीकम�चारीयापेंश�भोगीयापू व� कुटुंबपेंश�भोगीकी मानसिक या शारीरिकमृत्युकेसमयकुटुंबपेंश� कर�ेकी मानसिक या शारीरिकअन्यशतO कोभीपू राकरताहै। यह माना जाएगा कि ऐसा बच्चाऐसे मामलों की मानसिक या शारीरिकमेंनिवत्तीयलाभ, इसकाया�लयज्ञाप�के जारीहो�ेकी मानसिक या शारीरिकतारीख से देय होगा और सरकारीसेदेयहोगाऔरसरकारी कम�चारी/पेंश�भोगी/पू व�पेंश�भोगीकी मानसिक या शारीरिकमृत्युकी मानसिक या शारीरिक तारीख से देय होगा और सरकारीसेआरंभहो�ेवालीअवधिध में भारत सरकारकेलिलए आय के मानदण्ड के सम्बन्ध में भारत सरकारकोई दिल्ली द्वारा निर्गत कार्यालय बकायास्वीकाय��हीं करता हैहोगा। यह माना जाएगा कि ऐसा बच्चा

¶27

The Chief Medical Officer, Barabanki submitted two reports on 27.12.2022 and 6.2.2023 respectively. In one report, the Chief Medical Officer observed that the appellant is unable to work properly to earn his livelihood and in

¶28

Page No. 5 of 6

¶29

another report, it is observed that the appellant is not completely disabled and a technical lacuna was pointed out that where there is no requirement of strong locomotive capacity, he is able to work to earn his livelihood. The claim of the appellant was denied only on the basis of report submitted by the Chief Medical Officer which itself is contradictory.

¶30

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the present intra court appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 08.01.2025 passed in Writ-A No. 2546 of 2023 is set aside with a direction to the respondents to take a fresh decision in respect of grant of family pension to the appellant keeping in view his earning capacity comparable to the family pension he is entitled to fully or in part. This exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from today and the fresh order passed shall be communicated to him without any delay.

¶31

No order as to costs.

¶32

[Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.] [Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.]

¶33

Order Date :- 26.5.2025 kanhaiya

¶34

Page No. 6 of 6

¶35

Digitally signed by :- KANHAIYA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ajay Kumar v. Secy. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj, U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar v. Secy. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj, U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

No. 15417485K,EX-NK (Ts) Mujavar Habib Husen vs Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lko. Thru. Registrar, Lko. and 4 Others

Union of India Thru. Ministry of Defence South Block New Delhi and 3 Others vs Ex Hav. (Gnr.) Dileep Kumar (No. 15135570-W)

Abhay Kumar Mishra vs U.P. State Public Service Tribunal Lucknow Thru. Member and 2 Others

Union of India Thru. Ministry of Defence South Block New Delhi and 3 Others vs Ex Hav. (Gnr.) Dileep Kumar (No. 15135570-W)

Radhey Shyam Mishra vs Ministry of Environment Climate Change Thru. Secy. New Delhi Govt. of India and 6 Others

Jay Jay Ram vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 7 Others