NEW DELHI: The Madras high court has ruled that a stepson cannot claim family pension under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, since the rules’ definition of “family” does not cover stepchildren. The court, in its order on July 3, set aside a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) order that had granted the benefit, and allowed a writ petition filed by the Railways challenging it.What was the case aboutAs per the court order, G Chengalan is the stepson of late G Kalaiselvi, who died in 2008 while serving in Southern Railway as a pointsman. Chengalan then sought family pension from the Railways, but Southern Railway denied it, stating that the rules do not include a stepson as eligible for the pension.Chengalan approached the CAT’s Chennai Bench in 2017, seeking family pension under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, and the tribunal ruled in his favour on 7 June 2023.Aggrieved by this decision, Southern Railway moved the Madras high court against the order. The Railways’ counsel submitted that the gratuity due to Kalaiselvi had already been settled in Chengalan’s favour under Rule 70 of the Pension Rules.However, family pension was a separate benefit governed by Rule 75, and Chengalan did not qualify for it because Rule 75’s definition of “family” did not include a stepson. The Railways further pointed out that while the CAT had referred to the rules, it had mistakenly relied on Rule 70 — which deals with gratuity, not family pension — to grant the benefit.What did the court sayThe bench comprising Justices S.M. Subramaniam and N. Senthilkumar examined Rule 75 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, which lays down who qualifies as “family” for the Family Pension Scheme for Railway Servants, 1964.The rule defines family as the “wife in the case of a male railway servant or husband in the case of a female railway servant,” a judicially separated spouse under certain conditions, and a “son who has not attained the age of twenty-five years and unmarried daughter who has not attained the age of twenty five years,” including those born after retirement or legally adopted before retirement — but specifically excluding “a son or daughter adopted after retirement.“The court explained that a government servant can choose anyone to receive gratuity. But family pension works differently — it can only be given to someone who fits the definition of “family” laid down in the Pension Rules.Applying this, the bench held that the stepson is not eligible for family pension.“Step-son is not eligible to receive family pension under the Rules, in view of the definition, as stated above, and thus, the Order dated 07.06.2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in O.A.No. 409 of 2017 is set aside,” the court said.It further observed that though the CAT had “considered the Rules, it granted family pension by relying upon Rule 70, which is inapplicable to the grant of family pension.”With this finding, the court set aside the CAT’s order dated 7 June 2023 and allowed the Railways’ writ petition, with no order as to costs.
