High Court · 2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 2 & 5, Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 and Dr. Uday Veer Singh, learned counsel for the respondents no. 3 & 4.

2. Under challenge is the order dated 08.02.2023 passed by the respondent no. 3, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of family pension has been rejected.

3. The facts of the instant case have already been set forth in detail by this Court vide order dated 31.03.2023 which for the sake of convenience is reproduced below:- "1. Heard Sri Rahul Roshan Dubey, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 & 5, Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Sri Rahul Shukla, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 & 4.

2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.02.2023 passed by Basic Education Officer, Barabanki thereby recommending that petitioner would not be entitled to receive family pension on the ground that as per disability report received from Chief Medical Officer, Barabanki, it has not been certified that disability of the petitioner is such that he cannot earn any living and it is stated that petitioner cannot earn a living in any industries where there is requirement of use of legs.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel or petitioner that his father Hridya Narain Shukla was working as Assistant Teacher and retired on 30.06.2006 from the post of Principal, Purv Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Subeha, he died on 20.01.2017 and subsequent to his death his wife, namely, Smt. Prema Devi- mother of petitioner was getting family pension. The mother of the petitioner also died on 14.08.2022 and after her death the petitioner claims to be entitled for family pension. He further submits that according to Government Order dated 15.06.2022, it is stated that children of the government servant who are unable to earn any living due to any disability, on production of a medical certificate from competent authority shall be entitled to family pension.

4. It is in pursuance of aforesaid government order that pursuant to the application submitted by petitioner he was subjected to a medical examination where on 27.12.2022, the Chief Medical Officer, Barabanki issued a medical certificate holding the petitioner suffers from deformity right lower limb disability which was assessed at 55% and the petitioner cannot be employed for works in job which entail use of legs. As per another report on 06.02.2023 the same report was reiterated and was stated that he cannot work in jobs where both legs are required and accordingly he submits that petitioner cannot work in any job and hence he falls into the category of such disable person as described in the Government Order dated 15.06.2022 and he is entitled for family pension.

5. In view of the above, prima facie the order of Chief Medical Officer do not support the case of the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, learned counsel for respondents pray for and are granted four weeks time to file counter affidavit. Petitioner shall have two weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit.

7. List this case on 15.05.2023."

4. From a perusal of the aforesaid order it emerges that the petitioner has staked his claim for being paid family pension on the ground of being disabled son of the deceased employee namely Sri Harday Narayan Shukla who was working on the post of Principal and after retirement was getting pension. After the death of the father of the petitioner, his mother started getting pension who also died on 14.08.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner staked his claim for being given the family pension on the basis of being the physically handicapped son of the deceased employee. The claim was raised on the basis of the Government order dated 25.06.2022, a copy of which is part of annexure 10 to the writ petition (page 22 of the petition) which provides for grant of family pension to the family member of the deceased pensioner who is unable to earn his livelihood which has to be certified by a competent medical officer.

5. Initially, the Chief Medical Officer vide his certificate dated 27.12.2022, a copy of which is part of annexure 7 (page 27 of the petition) has indicated that the petitioner is suffering from 55 percent deformity of the right lower limb and consequently, he his unable to earn livelihood from such deformity which requires movement.

6. Subsequent thereto, the Chief Medical Officer has given another certificate dated 06.02.2023, a copy of which is part of annexure 9 (page 30 to the petition) wherein after considering the deformity of the right lower limb which has been found to be 55 percent deformity, it has been opined that it cannot be said that that the petitioner is unable to earn his livelihood.

7. Based on the said certificate, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari has rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of family pension and hence the petition.

8. Argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that two different medical opinions have been given by the Chief Medical Officer as emerges from a perusal of the medical certificates dated 28.12.2022 & 06.02.2023 and thus it is urged that even the Chief Medical Officer i.e the competent medical authority is not satisfied regarding the medical disability of the petitioner being of such an extent that the petitioner is unable to earn his livelihood and consequently, the order impugned being based on the said medical certificate rejecting the claim of the petitioner for being given the family pension merits to be quashed.

9. On the other hand, Dr. Uday Veer Singh, learned counsel for the respondents no. 3 & 4 as well as learned Standing counsel have justified the order impugned.

10. Their contention is that a perusal of the Government order dated 15.06.2022 itself makes it clear that the competent medical officer has to certify that the person claiming family pension on the basis of his physical disability is unable to earn his livelihood on account of physical disability suffered by him.

11. It is contended that initially the Chief Medical Officer had opined on 27.12.2022 that as the petitioner is suffering from 55 percent deformity of the right lower limb consequently, he is unable to earn his livelihood from the work which requires walking and movement. The said deformity has been clarified by the Chief Medical Officer vide his subsequent certificate dated 06.02.2023 which certificate would be in full consonance with the Government order dated 15.06.2022 whereby the Chief Medical Officer has opined that considering the disability suffered by the petitioner of 55 percent deformity in the right lower limb it cannot be said that the petitioner is unable to earn his livelihood and thus placing reliance on the said medical certificate, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari has rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of family pension and thus there is no infirmity in the order impugned.

12. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting parties and having perused the records it emerges that the petitioner has staked his claim for being given the family pension on the basis of being disabled son of the deceased pensioner. The claim for family pension to physically handicapped dependent of the pensioner is governed by the Government order dated 15.06.2022 which categorically provides that in case the competent medical officer is of the view that on account of the disability suffered by the person claiming family pension renders him to unable his livelihood then family pension can be granted.

13. Perusal of the medical certificates issued by the competent medical officer, in this case the Chief Medical Officer dated 27.12.2022 and 06.02.2023 indicate that the Chief Medical Officer has opined that as the petitioner is suffering from 55 percent deformity of the right lower limb consequently, he is unable to earn his livelihood from such work which requires movement but is not completely unable to earn his livelihood.

14. Although, learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to indicate that there is a difference between certificates issued by the Chief Medical Officer dated 27.12.2022 viz-a-viz the certificate dated 06.02.2023 yet when the said certificates are read harmoniously it clearly emerges that in the medical certificate dated 27.12.2022, the Chief Medical Officer has clearly indicated that the petitioner would be unable to earn his livelihood from such work which requires movement meaning thereby that earning of his livelihood from other work which does not require movement was not ruled out which aspect has been clarified in the certificate dated 06.02.2023. Thus, once the competent medical officer has opined that the petitioner is not completely unable to earn his livelihood on account of the deformity/disability suffered by him consequently, it cannot be said that the petitioner would be entitled for being given the family pension and his case thus is not covered by the Government order dated 15.06.2022 which, as already indicated above clearly provides that it is the competent medical officer who has to opine that a physically handicapped person is completely unable to earn his livelihood.

15. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

16. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner states that others have already been granted family pension as would be apparent from a perusal of the order dated 22.07.2022, a copy of which is annexure 11 to the writ petition.

17. Suffice it to say that in case any illegality has been committed by the respondent in granting family pension to a person who might not be eligible for the same that would not give a license to the petitioner to claim his right on the same illegality. However, the Court hastens to add the Court has not gone into the applicability or in-applicability of the person to whom family pension has been granted. Order Date :- 8.1.2025/Pachhere/- SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 2 & 5, Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 and Dr. Uday Veer Singh, learned counsel for the respondents no. 3 & 4.

2. Under challenge is the order dated 08.02.2023 passed by the respondent no. 3, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of family pension has been rejected.

3. The facts of the instant case have already been set forth in detail by this Court vide order dated 31.03.2023 which for the sake of convenience is reproduced below:- "1. Heard Sri Rahul Roshan Dubey, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 & 5, Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Sri Rahul Shukla, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 & 4.

2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.02.2023 passed by Basic Education Officer, Barabanki thereby recommending that petitioner would not be entitled to receive family pension on the ground that as per disability report received from Chief Medical Officer, Barabanki, it has not been certified that disability of the petitioner is such that he cannot earn any living and it is stated that petitioner cannot earn a living in any industries where there is requirement of use of legs.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel or petitioner that his father Hridya Narain Shukla was working as Assistant Teacher and retired on 30.06.2006 from the post of Principal, Purv Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Subeha, he died on 20.01.2017 and subsequent to his death his wife, namely, Smt. Prema Devi- mother of petitioner was getting family pension. The mother of the petitioner also died on 14.08.2022 and after her death the petitioner claims to be entitled for family pension. He further submits that according to Government Order dated 15.06.2022, it is stated that children of the government servant who are unable to earn any living due to any disability, on production of a medical certificate from competent authority shall be entitled to family pension.

4. It is in pursuance of aforesaid government order that pursuant to the application submitted by petitioner he was subjected to a medical examination where on 27.12.2022, the Chief Medical Officer, Barabanki issued a medical certificate holding the petitioner suffers from deformity right lower limb disability which was assessed at 55% and the petitioner cannot be employed for works in job which entail use of legs. As per another report on 06.02.2023 the same report was reiterated and was stated that he cannot work in jobs where both legs are required and accordingly he submits that petitioner cannot work in any job and hence he falls into the category of such disable person as described in the Government Order dated 15.06.2022 and he is entitled for family pension.

5. In view of the above, prima facie the order of Chief Medical Officer do not support the case of the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, learned counsel for respondents pray for and are granted four weeks time to file counter affidavit. Petitioner shall have two weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit.

7. List this case on 15.05.2023."

4. From a perusal of the aforesaid order it emerges that the petitioner has staked his claim for being paid family pension on the ground of being disabled son of the deceased employee namely Sri Harday Narayan Shukla who was working on the post of Principal and after retirement was getting pension. After the death of the father of the petitioner, his mother started getting pension who also died on 14.08.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner staked his claim for being given the family pension on the basis of being the physically handicapped son of the deceased employee. The claim was raised on the basis of the Government order dated 25.06.2022, a copy of which is part of annexure 10 to the writ petition (page 22 of the petition) which provides for grant of family pension to the family member of the deceased pensioner who is unable to earn his livelihood which has to be certified by a competent medical officer.

5. Initially, the Chief Medical Officer vide his certificate dated 27.12.2022, a copy of which is part of annexure 7 (page 27 of the petition) has indicated that the petitioner is suffering from 55 percent deformity of the right lower limb and consequently, he his unable to earn livelihood from such deformity which requires movement.

6. Subsequent thereto, the Chief Medical Officer has given another certificate dated 06.02.2023, a copy of which is part of annexure 9 (page 30 to the petition) wherein after considering the deformity of the right lower limb which has been found to be 55 percent deformity, it has been opined that it cannot be said that that the petitioner is unable to earn his livelihood.

7. Based on the said certificate, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari has rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of family pension and hence the petition.

8. Argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that two different medical opinions have been given by the Chief Medical Officer as emerges from a perusal of the medical certificates dated 28.12.2022 & 06.02.2023 and thus it is urged that even the Chief Medical Officer i.e the competent medical authority is not satisfied regarding the medical disability of the petitioner being of such an extent that the petitioner is unable to earn his livelihood and consequently, the order impugned being based on the said medical certificate rejecting the claim of the petitioner for being given the family pension merits to be quashed.

9. On the other hand, Dr. Uday Veer Singh, learned counsel for the respondents no. 3 & 4 as well as learned Standing counsel have justified the order impugned.

10. Their contention is that a perusal of the Government order dated 15.06.2022 itself makes it clear that the competent medical officer has to certify that the person claiming family pension on the basis of his physical disability is unable to earn his livelihood on account of physical disability suffered by him.

11. It is contended that initially the Chief Medical Officer had opined on 27.12.2022 that as the petitioner is suffering from 55 percent deformity of the right lower limb consequently, he is unable to earn his livelihood from the work which requires walking and movement. The said deformity has been clarified by the Chief Medical Officer vide his subsequent certificate dated 06.02.2023 which certificate would be in full consonance with the Government order dated 15.06.2022 whereby the Chief Medical Officer has opined that considering the disability suffered by the petitioner of 55 percent deformity in the right lower limb it cannot be said that the petitioner is unable to earn his livelihood and thus placing reliance on the said medical certificate, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari has rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of family pension and thus there is no infirmity in the order impugned.

12. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting parties and having perused the records it emerges that the petitioner has staked his claim for being given the family pension on the basis of being disabled son of the deceased pensioner. The claim for family pension to physically handicapped dependent of the pensioner is governed by the Government order dated 15.06.2022 which categorically provides that in case the competent medical officer is of the view that on account of the disability suffered by the person claiming family pension renders him to unable his livelihood then family pension can be granted.

13. Perusal of the medical certificates issued by the competent medical officer, in this case the Chief Medical Officer dated 27.12.2022 and 06.02.2023 indicate that the Chief Medical Officer has opined that as the petitioner is suffering from 55 percent deformity of the right lower limb consequently, he is unable to earn his livelihood from such work which requires movement but is not completely unable to earn his livelihood.

14. Although, learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to indicate that there is a difference between certificates issued by the Chief Medical Officer dated 27.12.2022 viz-a-viz the certificate dated 06.02.2023 yet when the said certificates are read harmoniously it clearly emerges that in the medical certificate dated 27.12.2022, the Chief Medical Officer has clearly indicated that the petitioner would be unable to earn his livelihood from such work which requires movement meaning thereby that earning of his livelihood from other work which does not require movement was not ruled out which aspect has been clarified in the certificate dated 06.02.2023. Thus, once the competent medical officer has opined that the petitioner is not completely unable to earn his livelihood on account of the deformity/disability suffered by him consequently, it cannot be said that the petitioner would be entitled for being given the family pension and his case thus is not covered by the Government order dated 15.06.2022 which, as already indicated above clearly provides that it is the competent medical officer who has to opine that a physically handicapped person is completely unable to earn his livelihood.

15. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

16. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner states that others have already been granted family pension as would be apparent from a perusal of the order dated 22.07.2022, a copy of which is annexure 11 to the writ petition.

17. Suffice it to say that in case any illegality has been committed by the respondent in granting family pension to a person who might not be eligible for the same that would not give a license to the petitioner to claim his right on the same illegality. However, the Court hastens to add the Court has not gone into the applicability or in-applicability of the person to whom family pension has been granted. Order Date :- 8.1.2025/Pachhere/- SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench