The Madras High Court has ruled that a stepson cannot claim family pension under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, holding that the benefit is available only to individuals who fall within the statutory definition of “family” prescribed under the Rules.
A Division Bench comprising Justices S.M. Subramaniam and N. Senthilkumar overturned an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) that had directed the grant of family pension to the stepson of a deceased Southern Railway employee.
The Bench drew a clear distinction between gratuity and family pension, observing that the two benefits are governed by separate provisions and operate under different legal principles.
The Court noted that while Rule 70 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules allows a railway employee to nominate any person to receive death gratuity, family pension under Rule 75 is restricted to those expressly included within the definition of “family.”
The judges observed that a government servant enjoys discretion in nominating a beneficiary for gratuity, but no such flexibility exists in the case of family pension, which must be disbursed strictly in accordance with the eligibility criteria laid down in the Rules. Since a stepson is not included within that definition, the claim could not be sustained.
The dispute arose after G. Chengalan, the stepson of late G. Kalaiselvi, sought family pension following her death in September 2008. Kalaiselvi had served as a Pointsman in Southern Railway.
Chengalan had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, which allowed his application in June 2023. Challenging that decision, Southern Railway contended before the High Court that Chengalan had already received the death gratuity as the nominated beneficiary, but such nomination did not automatically confer a right to family pension.
Accepting this contention, the High Court examined the relevant pension provisions and found that Rule 75 recognizes only specified categories of dependants, including the spouse, a judicially separated spouse in certain circumstances, and eligible children. A stepson does not feature among the listed beneficiaries.
Holding that the Tribunal had erred in extending the scope of the Rules, the Bench allowed Southern Railway’s petition and set aside the CAT’s order directing payment of family pension to Chengalan.
