Rajesh Pandey
While setting aside an order of the electricity department denying family pension to a disabled person, the Allahabad High Court has held that as per government order, a person having sixty percent physical disability is entitled for family pension.
Allowing a writ petition filed by one Mohd. Jamil , Justice Ajit Kumar observed, “Disability if disqualifies the petitioner to run a business, in my considered view, is sufficient enough to prove that such a disabled person deserves family pension”.
With these observations, the court set aside the order dated November 12, 2020 issued by the senior accounts officer, pension of the Kanpur electricity supply company Ltd, whereby the petitioner’s claim for dependent/ family pension was rejected.
The court in its decision dated July 9 directed the managing director Kanpur electricity supply company (Kesco) to accord family pension to the petitioner. The court directed that 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.
The father of the petitioner, who was an ex-employee of the KESCO retired upon attaining age of superannuation on May 31, 1975 and thereafter he died in the year 2003 and so consequently the mother of the petitioner started getting pension. Mother according to the petitioner died later on April 21, 2013 and resultantly the petitioner being dependent upon his mother made an application for family pension, to respondent on May 7, 2013.
As per direction of the authorities, the petitioner submitted a disability certificate issued by the chief medical officer (CMO). However, despite medical certificate of the CMO submitted before the authority, the matter was referred to a four member committee constituted to examine the claim of the petitioner and whereas the committee was not equipped with any medical skill, nor committee consisted of any medical officer. Subsequently, the committee rejected the claim of the petitioner only on the ground that at some point of time the petitioner was running public call office (PCO) and so he was able to earn and that the petitioner was found to be physically disabled up to some extent. As a consequence to the decision taken by the committee the accounts officer, who was one of the members of the committee passed an order dated November 12, 2020 rejecting claim of the petitioner. Hence, he filed the present writ petition.
The counsel for the petitioner argued that merely because at the some point of time the petitioner ran a PCO, petitioner cannot be termed as ‘not a disabled person’. It is submitted that as per the rules and the relevant government orders, in every government service and also for the purposes of pension etc, it is the certificate of the CMO or medical officer of an officer of equivalent rank which would weigh and not the decision of unskilled persons or the committee which has no medical officer on its panel.
