Case Note & Summary
The dispute pertained to the claim of family pension by a step-son of a deceased railway employee under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. Late G. Kalaiselvi, who served as a Pointsman in Southern Railway, died on 24.09.2008, and her step-son, the respondent, received the gratuity payable on her death under Rule 70 of the said Rules. Subsequently, he filed Original Application No. 409 of 2017 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, seeking family pension. The railway authorities denied the claim on the ground that the definition of 'family' under Rule 75 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 does not include a step-son. The Tribunal, however, allowed the application on 07.06.2023, granting family pension after considering the Rules and relying on Rule 70. Aggrieved, the Union of India and the railway officials filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the Tribunal’s order. Before the High Court, the petitioners argued that while gratuity had been correctly settled under Rule 70, which allows nomination of any person, family pension is governed solely by Rule 75. Rule 75 incorporates the Family Pension Scheme for Railway Servants, 1964, and defines 'family' exhaustively under Sub-Rule 19(b). The definition includes wife, husband, judicially separated spouse under certain conditions, and sons and daughters below the age of twenty-five years, including those born after retirement or adopted legally before retirement, but does not mention a step-son. The petitioners contended that the Tribunal erroneously applied Rule 70 to grant family pension, even though it is not relevant for that purpose. The respondent did not appear. The Court examined the provisions and held that step-son is not part of the definition of 'family' for family pension, and Rule 70 cannot be relied upon as a basis for granting family pension. Consequently, the High Court set aside the Tribunal’s order, allowed the writ petition, and held that the respondent is not entitled to family pension. No costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Service Law – Family Pension – Eligibility of Step-son – Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, Rule 75 – The respondent, step-son of a deceased railway employee, sought family pension after gratuity had been settled under Rule 70 – The Court examined the definition of 'family' in Rule 75 and held that step-son is not included, and Rule 70, concerning nomination for gratuity, cannot be the basis for family pension – Held that the Central Administrative Tribunal’s order granting pension was erroneous and is set aside (Paras 2-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a step-son is eligible for family pension under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, specifically under Rule 75 defining 'family', and whether the Central Administrative Tribunal correctly applied Rule 70 in granting such pension.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the Central Administrative Tribunal's order dated 07.06.2023. It held that step-son is not included in the definition of 'family' under Rule 75 and is not eligible for family pension. No costs.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Family pension must be granted strictly in accordance with the definition of 'family' under Rule 75 of Railway Services (Pension) Rules
- 1993
- step-son is not included in the definition
- Rule 70 relates to gratuity nomination and is inapplicable to family pension
