Stepson not eligible for family pension under Railway Pension Rules: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has held that a stepson is not eligible to receive family pension under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 [Union of India Vs Registrar].

A Bench of Justices SM Subramaniam and N Senthilkumar set aside an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal which had granted family pension to the stepson of a deceased Southern Railway employee.

"Under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, a Government servant may nominate any person for receiving gratuity. As far as family pension is concerned, it is to be granted strictly in accordance with the definition of “family” as contemplated under the Pension Rules. Step-son is not eligible to receive family pension under the Rules, in view of the definition, as stated above," the Court said.

The case concerned a claim made by G Chengalan, the stepson of late G Kalaiselvi, who had served as a pointsman with Southern Railway and died on September 24, 2008.

Chengalan approached the CAT seeking family pension under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules. The Tribunal allowed his plea on June 7, 2023.

Southern Railway then moved the High Court challenging the CAT order.

It argued that while gratuity payable to the deceased employee had already been settled in favour of Chengalan under Rule 70 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, the same did not mean that he was also entitled to family pension.

It was submitted that family pension is governed by Rule 75 of the Rules. The Railways argued that the definition of “family” under Rule 75 does not include a stepson.

The High Court accepted the argument.

It noted that Rule 70 deals with gratuity and permits a government servant to nominate any person to receive gratuity. However, family pension stands on a different footing.

The Bench found that Rule 75 defines “family” to include the spouse, judicially separated spouse in certain cases, and children who satisfy the conditions set out in the Rules. However, it does not include a stepson.

The High Court, therefore, allowed the petition filed by Southern Railway and quashed the CAT order granting family pension to Chengalan.

Southern Railway was represented by senior panel counsel AR Sakthivel.

[Read Judgment]