Allowed

Satheesh Raj Pillai, v. Union of India

Kerala HC27 Jun 2024OP (CAT)/5/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A disabled son of a deceased railway employee was denied disability/secondary family pension because a Medical Board certified him capable of earning his livelihood despite 100% disability. The High Court found that finding perverse, held reliance on Rule 75(6)(d) fallacious, and ruled family pension is a right, not charity.

What did the court decide?

Tribunal order set aside; OA allowed; rejection order set aside; family pension with arrears to be released at 9% interest per annum from date of eligibility within one month.

Satheesh Raj Pillai, Vs Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

‘C.R.’

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶5

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.

¶7

THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1946

¶8

OP (CAT) NO. 5 OF 2024

¶9

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.12.2023 IN OA NO.219 OF 2023 OF
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH

¶10

PETITIONER(S)/APPLICANT IN OA :

¶11

SATHEESH RAJ PILLAI, AGED 44 YEARS
S/O V. RAJAN PILLAI, KANATHATTIL VEEDU,
KOYICKALMURI, KIZHAKKEKKALLADA,
EAST KALLADA KOLLAM, KERALA 691502

¶12

BY ADVS. JIJUMON H.
ARSHA SATHEESAN
PREMJI SUKUMAR

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS IN OA :

¶14

1UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER
SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY RAIL NILAYAM,
SAROJINI DEVI ROAD, SECUNDERABAD,
TELANGANA, PIN - 500002

¶15

2 THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, NANDED DIVISION, MAHARASHTRA, PIN - 431605

¶16

3 THE CHIEF MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT, RAILWAY HOSPITAL, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, NANDED DIVISION, MAHARASHTRA, PIN - 431605

¶17

4 THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, NANDED DIVISION, MAHARASHTRA, PIN - 431605 BY ADV K.R.RAJKUMAR

¶18

THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.06.2024, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

O.P.(CAT) No.5 of 2024

¶20

¶21

‘C.R.’

¶22

AMIT RAWAL & EASWARAN S. , JJ.

¶23

O.P.(CAT) No.5 of 2024

¶24

Dated this the 27th day of June 2024

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

EASWARAN S., J

¶27

Can a claim for disability benefit be declined by the

¶28

authorities on the ground that a 100% deaf and dumb person

¶29

with complete blindness in the left eye could maintain himself by

¶30

earning a livelihood. The report of the Medical Board which holds

¶31

so by Railway Establishment found favour with the Central

¶32

Administrative Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’, for short). Faced with the

¶33

said situation, the applicant had come up with this Original

¶34

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶35

2. Succinctly the facts are as follows:

¶36

The applicant is the disabled son of late V Rajan Pillai, who

¶37

O.P.(CAT) No.5 of 2024 3

¶38

was an employee of South Central Railway and had voluntarily

¶39

retired on 28.2.2005, later expired on 1.6.2018. Mrs. T.

¶40

Radhamma, the wife of late V Rajan Pillai also expired on 19.11.2021. After the expiry of his parents, the applicant claimed disability pension with the respondents. The death certificates, the

¶41

income certificate and also the disability certificate were produced before the respondents. However, obviously for strange reasons, the claim of the petitioner was turned down under Annexures A14 and A15. The reason for turning down the claim is evident from Annexure A12. The respondents appeared before the Tribunal and raised their defense by placing reliance on Rule 75(6)

¶42

(d) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. (‘the Pension Rules” for short).

¶43

The Tribunal, on consideration of the materials on record,

¶44

dismissed the Original Application on 14.12.2023 on the ground

¶45

that the applicant is not entitled to have the disability pension on

¶46

the ground that the Medical Board had certified that he is

¶47

O.P.(CAT) No.5 of 2024

¶48

¶49

perfectly capable of earning his livelihood.

¶50

We have heard Sri. Jijumon H, the learned counsel

¶51

appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K.R. Rajkumar, the learned

¶52

CGC.

¶53

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

¶54

contend that the order of the Tribunal is perverse and the Tribunal clearly erred in dismissing the Original Application. The reliance

¶55

placed by the respondents to Rule 75 (6)(d) of the Pension Rules is totally inapplicable insofar as the disability of the petitioner is clearly proved by Annexure A12 certificate. Still further, reliance placed on Annexure A12 to the extent that the petitioner is capable of earning his livelihood has no rational basis and hence suffers from a vice of arbitrariness and non-application of mind.

¶56

He further contended that the Tribunal erred in blindly relying on the said certificate and dismissing the Original Application, hence

¶57

the same is liable to be interfered with by this Honourable Court

¶58

O.P.(CAT) No.5 of 2024 5

¶59

in exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of

¶60

India.

¶61

On the other hand, the learned Central Government

¶62

Counsel pointed out that the petitioner cannot claim disability

¶63

benefit because of the specific bar under Rule 75(6)(d) of the

¶64

Pension Rules. He would further point out that as per Annexure A12, the petitioner is certainly capable of earning his livelihood

¶65

and therefore the disability pension cannot be granted to him.

¶66

We have considered the rival submissions raised across

¶67

the Bar.

¶68

Before we give reasons for our finding, it is appropriate

¶69

to extract the contents of Annexure A12.

¶70

xxxxx

¶71

1 Name & age of the candidate Sri. Satheesh Raj Pillai, 46 years 1.A black mole on right hand

¶72

2 Identification Marks middle, 2. A black mole on forehead left

¶73

3 Disease Diagnosed as Deaf & Dumb with blindness in left eye

¶74

O.P.(CAT) No.5 of 2024

¶75

¶76

No locomotive deficiency

¶77

4 Percentage of disability 100% for hearing Percentage of earning

¶78

5 Capable of earning livelihood capacity Relationship with the

¶79

6 Son employee Particulars of the Railway

¶80

7 As above Employee Not recommended for inclusion of

¶81

8 Why the certificate issued. physically disabled son in secondary family pension

¶82

A reading of Annexure A12 would no doubt show that

¶83

the Medical Board has assessed the percentage of earning

¶84

capacity as the one capable of earning livelihood. We thus are called upon to decide whether, the assessment of disability and

¶85

also the capability of earning by the incumbent as opined by the Medical Board is perverse or vitiated by non application of mind.

¶86

No doubt, the findings of the Medical Board cannot be subjected to judicial scrutiny. However, we are mindful of the fact that if the finding is perverse and based on no materials on record, certainly the same could be interfered with by the Courts. We are, however,

¶87

not called upon to assess the disability of the petitioner nor to

¶88

O.P.(CAT) No.5 of 2024 7

¶89

opine on the sustainability of the findings of the Medical Board

¶90

qua the disability of the petitioner. However, even after finding

¶91

that there is 100% disability, the Medical Board has found that the petitioner is capable of earning livelihood. Therefore, the point which we have to consider is that, after noting that the petitioner

¶92

is 100% disabled, whether the finding rendered in Clause 5 of Annexure 12 could be sustained. We have no hesitation to hold that such a finding cannot be sustained even for a moment. It is

¶93

pertinent to note that the reliance placed by the respondents on

¶94

Rule 75(6)(d) of the Pension Rules is also equally fallacious.

¶95

Rule 75(6)(d) of the Pension Rules reads as follows:

¶96

(d) before allowing the family pension for life to any such son or daughter, the appointing authority shall satisfy that the handicap is of such a nature 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 Board comprising of a Medical Director or a Chief Medical Superintendent or incharge of a Zonal Hospital or Division or his nominee as Chairperson and two other members, out of which at least one shall be a specialist in the particular area of mental or physical disability including mental retardation setting out, as far as possible, the

¶97

O.P.(CAT) No.5 of 2024

¶98

¶99

exact mental or physical condition of the child;

¶100

A reading of the above Rule shows that the sanctioning authority should itself satisfy that the handicappedness is of such

¶101

a nature so as to prevent the incumbent from earning his or her livelihood and the same shall be evident by a certificate obtained by the Medical Board, therefore, it is clear that the sanctioning authority need not always be guided by the report of the Medical

¶102

Board but can independently decide qua sanctioning of the disability pension or otherwise.

¶103

The very aim and object of providing family pension to

¶104

physically challenged son/daughter of a deceased pensioner is a benevolent legislation commensurate with the mandate enshrined

¶105

under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Every power vested in a public authority is to sub-serve the same, and must invariably

¶106

be exercised to promote interest. The rule of law stands for the view that decisions should be made by the application of known

¶107

O.P.(CAT) No.5 of 2024

¶108

¶109

principles or laws. In general, such decisions will be predictable, and the citizen will know where he is. In exercise of the powers,

¶110

the court would be justified to quash the decision of the authority

¶111

if it finds that the very decision is antithesis to the very object of

¶112

the Rule or serves the ends of justice.

¶113

Poverty and blindness are believed to be intimately linked. Blindness also exacerbates poverty by limiting educational & employment opportunities. There are numerous visually challenged persons who are physically and mentally well but

¶114

incapable of earning livelihood because of inaccessibility of proper infrastructure in pursuing education. Such types of visually challenged persons are dependent upon their parents or relatives, if any, or resort to begging for their survival. This is a blunt but naked truth which needs to be accepted. Therefore, cases of physically challenged need to be considered sympathetically by

¶115

the authorities. Railways, being a model employer and India being a welfare State, where rules have been made for making it easier

¶116

O.P.(CAT) No.5 of 2024 10

¶117

for physically challenged persons to live with dignity, it is expected from Railway authorities to act accordingly. It must be

¶118

noted that the family pension is not a charity but a right, not

¶119

bounty but justice for the disabled wards of employees who have no means to earn livelihood and were dependent on their parents

¶120

till they were alive. We cannot be a party to such an insensitive approach of the Railways towards disabled persons who are perpetually knocking the doors of Court for justice. The approach of the courts in such cases should be definitely pragmatic and not to show insensitivity towards the cause. Viewed at any angle, we cannot subscribe to the findings rendered by the learned Tribunal in the order impugned.

¶121

We cannot be oblivious of the fact that a person like

¶122

the petitioner becomes helpless if the Medical Board, despite finding that there is 100% disability as deaf and dumb had chosen

¶123

to opine that such a person is capable of earning his livelihood. It passes one comprehension as to how such a finding could be

¶124

O.P.(CAT) No.5 of 2024 11

¶125

rendered by the Medical Board. Therefore, in our considered view, the finding rendered by the Medical Board on the earning capacity of the applicant is completely opaque. The sanctioning authority clearly erred in accepting the report and thus showing insensitivity towards a hapless disabled applicant. The penury was

¶126

further compounded by the failure on the part of the Tribunal to appreciate the true cause projected by the applicant. In our considered view, the findings of the Tribunal thus cannot be sustained.

¶127

Resultantly, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. The

¶128

Original Petition is allowed. Exhibit P4 order passed by the Central

¶129

Administrative Tribunal suffers from jurisdictional infirmity and thus calls for interference. Accordingly the same is set aside. The Original Application filed by the petitioner would stand allowed. Consequently, the order passed by the respondents rejecting the

¶130

claim of the petitioner for secondary family pension is thus set aside. The respondents are directed to quantify the family pension

¶131

O.P.(CAT) No.5 of 2024

¶132

¶133

and release the same including the arrears with 9% interest per

¶134

annum from the date of eligibility till disbursal, at any rate, within

¶135

a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the

judgment.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL

JUDGE

Sd/-

EASWARAN S. JUDGE

¶142

¶143

O.P.(CAT) No.5 of 2024

¶144

¶145

APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 5/2024

¶146

PETITIONER ANNEXURES :

¶147

`Annexure A14`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `NO.SCR/P-NED/657/`	`REJECTION LETTER` `SETT/NR/G.R. DATED 27.01.2023`
`Annexure A15` `Annexure A1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `NO.SCR/P-NED/657/` `TRUE COPY OF THE` `DATED 13/06/2018`	`REJECTION LETTER` `SETT/ONR/SRP DATED 21.02.2023` `DEATH CERTIFICATE OF RAJAN PILLAI`
`Annexure A2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `DATED 24/11/2021`	`DEATH CERTIFICATE OF RADHAMMA`
`Annexure A3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `DISABILITIES NO.`	`IDENTITY CARD FOR PERSONS WITH` `KLM HS00580065 DATED 19.11.2010`
`Annexure A4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `17.02.2006`	`LETTER NO.APN/NED/GR DATED`
`Annexure A5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `31.8.2020`	`PENSION PAYMENT ORDER DATED`
`AnnexureA6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `27.9.2022`	`INCOME CERTIFICATE DATED`
`Annexure A7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `THE DISTRICT MEDI` `DATED 25.04.2001`	`DISABILITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY` `CAL BOARD, PARBHANI, MAHARASHTRA`
`Annexure A8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `ISSUED BY THE STA` `DATED 25/08/2009.`	`DISABILITY CERTIFICATE NO. 1529` `NDING DISABILITY ASSESSMENT BOARD`
`Annexure A9`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `DISTRICT MEDICAL`	`DISABILITY CERTIFICATE OF` `BOARD, KOLLAM DATED 17/12/2022`
`Annexure A10`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `29.07.2022`	`LETTER NO.SCR/P-NED/657/SRP DATED`
`Annexure A11`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `SETT/NR/G.R DATED`	`LETTER NO.SCR/P-NED/657/` `12.01.2023`
`Annexure A12`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `THE CHIEF MEDICAL` `SOUTH CENTRAL RAI`	`DISABILITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY` `SUPERINTENDENT, NANDED DIVISION,` `LWAY, DATED 23.01.2023`
`Annexure A13`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `DATED 23.01.2023`	`OF LETTER N/MD/CMS/01/SFP/2023`
`Annexure A16`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `MICRO SURGERY & R`	`MEDICAL CERTIFICATE FROM MTMM EYE` `ESEARCH CENTER DATED 13.03.2023`
`Annexure A17`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `DATED 11.01.2016`	`LETTER NO.F(E)III/2005/PN1/32` `ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `180/219/2023) FIL` `HON'BLE CENTRAL A` `PRODUCED HEREWITH`	`ORIGINAL APPLICATION (OA NO.` `ED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE` `DMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, EKM IS` `AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT P1`

¶148

O.P.(CAT) No.5 of 2024

¶149

¶150

`Exhibit P2`	`TRUE COPY OF` `180/219/2023`	`THE` `DATE`	`REPLY FILED IN OA NO.` `D 01/09/2023`
`Exhibit P3`	`TRUE COPY OF` `180/219/2023`	`THE` `DATE`	`REJOINDER FILED IN OA NO.` `D 21/09/2023`
`Exhibit P4`	`TRUE COPY OF` `NO. 180/219/2`	`THE` `023`	`ORDER DATED 14.12.2023 IN O.A.`
`Exhibit P5`	`TRUE COPY OF` `ASSOCIATE PRO` `COLLEGE, KOLL`	`THE` `FESS` `AM`	`MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY` `OR, EYE&ENT, SN AYURVEDA MEDICAL` `DATED 09/11/2023`
`Exhibit P6`	`TRUE COPY OF` `COURT IN UNIO` `NO.907 OF 201`	`THE` `N OF` `9] D`	`JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE PATNA HIGH` `INDIA VS. DINESH KUMAR [CWJC` `ATED 14/12/2022`
`Exhibit P7` `Exhibit P8`	`TRUE COPY OF` `PRADESH HIGH` `BABA SINGH [2` `TRUE COPY OF` `COURT IN NATW` `MANAGER AND A` `2455 OF 2006]`	`THE` `COUR` `013` `THE` `ARLA` `NR.` `DA`	`JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE MADHYA` `T IN UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS V.` `(1) M.P.L.J. 416]` `JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH` `L BHALABHAI VEGADA VS. DIVISIONAL` `[SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.` `TED 11/8/2006`
`Exhibit P9`	`TRUE COPY OF` `ADMINISTRATIV` `BABU DORA VS` `DATED 03/03/2`	`THE` `E TR` `M/O` `022`	`JUDGMENT OF CENTRAL` `IBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH IN CHITTI` `RAILWAYS [O.A. NO. 260/426/2020]`
`Exhibit P10`	`TRUE COPY OF` `ADMINISTRATIV` `KRISHAN LAL V` `1162/2021 DAT`	`THE` `E TR` `S UN` `ED 0`	`JUDGMENT OF CENTRAL` `IBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH IN` `ION OF INDIA [O.A. NO.60/` `2/05/2023`
`Exhibit P11`	`TRUE COPY OF` `THE CASE OF S` `(2000) 1 SCC`	`THE` `UB-I` `644`	`JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IN` `NSPECTOR ROOPLAL V. LT. GOVERNOR,`
`Exhibit P12`	`TRUE COPY OF` `ADMINISTRATIV` `KUMAR VS. THE` `NO.60/547/201`	`THE` `E TR` `NOR` `8]`	`JUDGMENT OF CENTRAL` `IBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH IN RAKESH` `THERN RAILWAYS [O.A.` `DATED 20/02/2020`

Satheesh Raj Pillai, v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satheesh Raj Pillai, v. Union of India

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, Vs G.Abraham

K.Viswanatha Panicker, Vs Principal Commissioner of Income TAX-1

K.K.Yousuf Vs Ramlath.K.P

Poyil Raju Vs Angadiprath Devi

Maraam Veettil Vinu Kumar Vs Angadiprath Devi

Union of India Vs Col Nc Isaac (Retd) No IC-45788P