Ajay Kumar vs Secy. Basic Education Board, ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 7249 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Ajay Kumar vs Secy. Basic Education Board, ... on 26 May, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


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
 

 
Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.
 

Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

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

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

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

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

4. 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.

Order on Appeal

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

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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 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.

9. 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.

10. 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 :-

3. सेवानिवृत्त/मृत्त कर्मचारी/पेंशनरों की मानसिक या शारीरिक निःशक्तता से ग्रस्त (विकलांग) संतान की पारिवारिक पेंशन की देयता के लिए आय के मानदण्ड के सम्बन्ध में भारत सरकार, कार्मिक, लोक शिकायत एवं पेंशन मंत्रालय, पेंशन और पेंशनभोगी कल्याण विभाग, नई दिल्ली द्वारा निर्गत कार्यालय-ज्ञापन संख्या-1/17/2019-पी एंड पी डब्ल्यू (ई), दिनांक 08 फरवरी, 2021 के प्रस्तर- 3, 4 एवं 6 में दी गयी व्यवस्था निम्नवत हैः-

"3- उक्त के क्रम में यह निर्णय लिया गया है कि दिवंगत सरकारी कर्मचारी/पेंशनभोगी का मानसिक या शारीरिक निःशक्तता से ग्रस्त बच्चा/सहोदर, जीवनपर्यन्त कुटुंब पेंशन पाने का पात्र होगा, यदि नियुक्ति प्राधिकारी का यह समाधान हो जाता है कि निःशक्तता ऐसी प्रकृति की है, जिसके कारण वह अपनी आजीविका कमाने में असमर्थ है, जैसा कि सक्षम चिकित्सा प्राधिकारी से प्राप्त प्रमाणपत्र से साक्ष्यित है। यह माना जाएगा कि ऐसा बच्चा अपनी जीविका उपार्जन नहीं करता है, यदि कुटुंब पेंशन के अलावा अन्य स्रोतों से उसकी कुल आय सम्बन्धित सरकारी कर्मचारी/पेंशनभोगी के दिवंगत होने पर, साधारण दर पर देय कुटुंब पेंशन और उस पर स्वीकार्य मंहगाई राहत से कम है।

4. तदनुसार, दिवंगत सरकारी कर्मचारी/पेंशनभोगी का ऐसा बच्चा/सहोदर, जो मानसिक या शारीरिक निःशक्तता से ग्रस्त है, जीवनपर्यन्त कुटुंब पेंशन पाने का पात्र होगा, यदि वह अन्यों के साथ निम्न शर्तों को पूरा करता हैः-

(i) सक्षम चिकित्सका प्राधिकारी द्वारा निःशकत्तता प्रमाणपत्र जारी किया गया है।

(ii) कुटुंब पेंशन के अलावा अन्य स्रोतों से निःशक्त बच्चे की समग्र आय साधारण दर पर स्वीकार्य कुटुंब पेंशन (अर्थात् मृत सरकारी कर्मचारी/पेंशनभोगी द्वारा आहरित अंतिम वेतन का 30 प्रतिशत) और उस पर स्वीकार्य मंहगाई रात से कम है।

6. ऐसे मामलों में, जहां पूर्व आय मानदंड को पूरा न करने के कारण मानसिक या शारीरिक निःशक्तता से ग्रस्त किसी बच्चे/सहोदर को वर्तमान में कुटुंब पेंशन नहीं मिल रही है, ऐसे बच्चे/सहोदर को कुटुंब पेंशन दी जा सकती है, यदि वह उपरोक्त आय मानदंड को पूरा करता है और सरकारी कर्मचारी या पेंशनभोगी या पूर्व कुटुंब पेंशनभोगी की मृत्यु के समय कुटुंब पेंशन करने की अन्य शर्तों को भी पूरा करता है। ऐसे मामलों में वित्तीय लाभ, इस कार्यालय ज्ञापन के जारी होने की तारीख से देय होगा और सरकारी कर्मचारी/पेंशनभोगी/पूर्व पेंशनभोगी की मृत्यु की तारीख से आरंभ होने वाली अवधि के लिए कोई बकाया स्वीकार्य नहीं होगा।

11. 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 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.

12. 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.

13. No order as to costs.

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

Order Date :- 26.5.2025

kanhaiya