Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Radhika vs Railway on 24 April, 2026
1
(Reserved on 10.03.2026)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JABALPUR BENCH
(Circuit Sitting at Gwalior)
Jabalpur, this the 24th day of April, 2026
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MRS. MALLIKA ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Original Application No. 961 of 2023
Radhika, S/o Late Shri Bhaskar Rao Yamgar, Aged 40 years, Occupation-
Housewife, R/o Shiv Nagar, Dhokalpura, Veerpur, Sikandar, Kampoo,
Gwalior (MP). .......Applicant
Advocate for the applicant: Shri Prashant Singh Kaurav
VERSUS
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Rail
Bhawan, 256-A, Raisina Road, Rajpath Area, Central Seretariate, New
Delhi - 110001.
2. General Manager, North Central Railway, Headquarter Office,
Subedarganj, Prayagraj (UP) - 211015.
3. Divisional Railway Manager (P), West Central Railway, Bhopal Division,
Bhopal (MP) - 462026.
4. Govindrao Yamgar, S/o Late Shri Bhaskar Rao Yamgar, Aged 52 years,
R/o near C. Cabin, Mehragaon, Itarsi, Narwadapuram (MP) - 461001.
......Respondents
Advocate for the respondents: Shri Rajendra Singh Dhakar
Shri Shishupal Singh Gurjar
ANAND
2026.04.28 Page 1 of 6
PRAKASH
10:17:02+05'30'
DUBEY
2
ORDER
By Akhil Kumar Srivastava, JM:-
In the present original application, the applicant, is aggrieved by the order dated 08.09.2023 (Annexure A-3) by which her request for grant of family pension has been rejected by the respondents. .
2. The applicant being divorced daughter of the deceased employee Late Bhaskar Rao Yamgar submitted application for family pension since her mother was predeceased to her father. The applicant contended that her father was died on 25.10.2018 whereas she got divorced from the competent court of law on 03.02.2018 and since then, she was living with him being fully depended and taking care of him, but the respondents released the family pension in favour of respondent no. 4 who was also submitted application for family pension being disabled son.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the action of the respondents in releasing family pension in favour of respondent no. 4 is violative of Rule 75(6) (iii) and second proviso thereof of Railway Pension Service Rules 1993 as no verification was conducted by the respondents regarding factum and percentage of disability and capability of earning of livelihood. Referring to an affidavit submitted by the respondent no. 4 with income certificate (Annexure A-
6), learned counsel for the applicant submitted that since the respondent ANAND 2026.04.28 Page 2 of 6 PRAKASH 10:17:02+05'30' DUBEY 3 no. 4 has declared himself to be a 'Mazdoor' therefore, he is capable to earn his livelihood and cannot be said to be disabled person. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has cited the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 04.02.2021 passed in W.P. No. 1672/2018 - Sudhir Sharma Vs. State of M.P which has been affirmed by the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court on 08.07.2021 in Writ Appeal No. 273/2021 and submitted that since the applicant being a labourer is capable to earn his livelihood, therefore, the impugned order dated 08.09.2023 may be set aside and direction may be given to the respondents to release family pension in favour of the applicant.
4. Per contra, the respondents have contested the claim of the applicant and filed reply. Referring to the contents of reply, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that after death of deceased employee, the applicant and respondent no. 4 were submitted separate application for family pension. Thereafter, an inquiry was conducted by the Chief Employee Welfare Inspector wherein the respondent no. 4 was found to be 50% disabled. Therefore, as per Rule 75 of Railway Servants (Pension) Rules 1993 (Annexure A-3), according to which first preference has to be given to disabled family member for family pension, the applicant was not found to be eligible for extending family pension in her favour. Learned counsel for the respondents also referred to Railway ANAND 2026.04.28 Page 3 of 6 PRAKASH 10:17:02+05'30' DUBEY 4 Board Letter No. D-43/10/2022 F(E) III dated 08.07.2022 (Annexure A-
4) and submitted that a disable son or daughter, who is already married can be sanctioned family pension for life subject to livelihood criteria and that no other family member is having prior claim for family pension. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the judgment cited by the applicant' counsel is not applicable in the present case and thus prayed that the OA may be dismissed.
5. We have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings. We have also considered the rival submissions.
6. It is not disputed that the father of the applicant and respondent no. 4 was a Railway employee and since the wife of the government servant was pre-deceased, therefore, the applicant being divorced daughter, who got divorced during life time of her father, and the respondents no. 4 being disabled son of the deceased pensioner applied their applications for family pension. Thereafter, the respondents released the family pension in favour of respondent no. 4 on the ground that as per Rule 75 of Railway Services (Pension) Rules 1993 (Annexure A-3), the disabled family member has to be given first preference for family pension. The respondents have also referred to Railway Board's letter no. D-43/10/2022 F(E) III dated 08.07.2022 (Annexure R-4) to justify the order to release family pension in favour of respondent no. 4.
ANAND 2026.04.28 Page 4 of 6 PRAKASH 10:17:02+05'30' DUBEY 5 We have gone through the annexure A-4 and para 5 of the said annexure provides as under: -
"5. In view of the above, a disabled son or daughter, who is already married or who gets married, can be sanctioned family pension for life time subject to livelihood criteria and that no other family member is having prior claim for family pension, as per the provisions of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993.
7. In the present case, it is noted from an affidavit given by the respondent no. 4 attached with Annexure A-6 of OA, which is Income Certificate, he has declared himself to be a 'Mazdoor' and was able to earn his livelihood. Thus, according to above para 5 of the Railway Board's letter 08.07.2022, before allowing the family pension for life to respondent no. 4, the sanctioning authority ought to have kept in mind that the handicap is of such a nature as to prevent him from earning his livelihood. From the relevant rules referred by the respondents, it is clear that a son is entitled for family pension if it is suffering from any disability and is not able to earn his livelihood even after attaining the age of 25 years. In the instant case, at the time of death of deceased pensioner, the respondent no. 4 was about 50 years of age and as per the affidavit submitted with Income Certificate by him, he is a 'Mozdoor'. There is also nothing in the reply to show that the respondent no. 4 was fully dependent upon his father due to his disability and was unable to earn livelihood. On the contrary, he was not living with his father and as per para 4.5 of the, he was not having good ANAND 2026.04.28 Page 5 of 6 PRAKASH 10:17:02+05'30' DUBEY 6 relation with the deceased pensioner and this fact has not been specifically denied in the reply by the official respondents or by the respondent no. 4. It is also noted from the impugned order dated 08.09.2023 (Annexure A-1), the respondent no. 4 was about 52 years and has declared himself to be a 'Mazdoor' therefore, it is not possible that a person attaining the age of 52 years is unable to maintain his family and earn his livelihood due to his disability. Therefore, the ground taken by the official respondents to release family pension in favour of the respondent no. 4 is not justified.
8. In view of the aforesaid observation, the O.A deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the Original Application No. 961/2023 is allowed. Consequently, the order 08.09.2023 (Annexure A-1) is set aside and the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the applicant and release family pension in her favour, if she otherwise fulfills other eligibility criteria as provided in Railway Services (Pension) Rules, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
9. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Mallika Arya) (Akhil Kumar Srivastava)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
Anand...
ANAND
2026.04.28 Page 6 of 6
PRAKASH
10:17:02+05'30'
DUBEY