Certificate Issued By CMO Is Sufficient, 60% Disability Entitles Dependent To Family Pension: Allahabad High Court
|The Allahabad High Court has observed that 60% physical disability is sufficient enough for a person to be entitled to family pension as a disabled person who was dependent on his deceased parents.
The Court set aside the decision of the Kanpur Electricity Supply Company (KESCo) that rejected the claim of family pension by a disabled person (petitioner) totally dependent upon his parents after they passed away.
A Single Bench of Justice Ajit Kumar observed, “I do not find there to be any reason not to believe the physical disability certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer. The Government Order is very clear on the point and 60% physical disability is sufficient enough for a person to hold him entitled for family pension as a disabled who had been dependent of his parents who later died.”
Advocate Usha Devi Singh appeared for the petitioner, while Advocate Rajendra Kumar Misra represented the respondents.
The petitioner challenged the decision of the Senior Accounts Officer, Pension of KESCo, dated rejected his claim for family pension despite his physical disability. It was argued that a Government Order issued by the State Government provided that the disabled people were made entitled to family pension. The petitioner submitted that the disability pension to the dependents for physical or mental disability was in the nature of family pension.
The petitioner’s father was an ex-employee of KESCo who had retired and passed away in 2003, after which the petitioner's mother began receiving a pension. Following her death as well, the petitioner applied for a family pension, submitting a medical certificate from the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) who confirmed his 60% physical disability due to Polio.
Despite this, KESCo rejected his claim based on his previous operation of a Public Call Office (PCO). KESCo stated that the petitioner’s ability to run a PCO indicated he was not disabled enough to qualify for a pension.
The High Court stated, “In my considered view, even if the circular letter of the corporation is taken to mean that a disable person should be such that he would not be able to survive but for family pension, the committee has not returned any finding as to how the petitioner would be surviving with 60% disability. He might have operated some PCO in the past but failed to continue with the business and will be taken to be so only on account of this disability.”
The Court explained that a disability which disqualified the petitioner from running a business was sufficient enough to prove that such a disabled person deserved the family pension.
Consequently, the Court ordered, “Respondents are directed to accord family pension to the petitioner. Appropriate orders be passed by the competent authority within a period of one month from the date of presentation of certified copy of the order.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition
Cause Title: Mohd. Jamil v. Managing Director Kanpur Electricity Supply Company & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:111320)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Usha Devi Singh
Respondents: Advocates Rajendra Kumar Misra, Rajendra Kumar Pandey and Usha Kiran