Judgment:
1. This is the second visit of the petitioner to this Court. The petitioner by filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 5th July, 2012 (Annexure P/1) by which the Manging Director of Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) has rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of family pension.
2. Shri Abhishek Bhadoriya, Advocate for the petitioner, submits that petitioner is 75% handicapped person. The medical certificate showing the same is filed as Annexure P/2. The petitioner's father Late K.B.Saxena was an employee of LIC and died in harness on 31.03.1992. He was working as Development Officer at Vidisha. The petitioner's mother Manorama Saxena was receiving the pension after the death of petitioner's father. The petitioner's mother also expired on 12.01.2001. After the death of petitioner's mother, the Manager of LIC, Bhopal sent a letter to younger brother of the petitioner informing that his elder brother is entitled for family pension. In pursuance of this order dated 22.01.2002 (Annexure P/3), the petitioner's younger brother sent all requisite documents to the LIC. The LIC by letter dated 13.06.2002 informed the petitioner that on perusal of medical certificate and record, the petitioner cannot be granted the benefit of family pension. Another communication of same nature dated 27.05.2006 is filed by the petitioner as (Annexure P/5). The petitioner after representing the matter from pillar to post filed WP No. 3634/2009 before this Court. The said WP was decided on 10.02.2012 (Annexure P/12). In obedience of direction passed by the writ court, the petitioner submitted his detailed affidavit dated 13.04.2012 (Annexure P/13). Thereafter the respondents directed the petitioner to appear before the approved medical officer of LIC. On 04.06.2012 the petitioner was examined by said Doctor who opined that petitioner is unable to work. The medical certificate dated 02.06.2012 is Annexure P/14. Thereafter petitioner was directed to appear before respondent No.1 on 02.07.2012. The petitioner appeared in person before the said authority. The said authority by impugned communication (Annexure P/1) rejected the claim of the petitioner for family pension.
3. Shri Abhishek Bhadoriya, learned counsel for the petitioner, criticized the said order and submits that the petitioner's claim is covered under Chapter VII which deals with family pension. By taking this Court to Rule 40, it is argued that the respondents have erred in rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Shri Bhadoriya submits that after the order of this court in WP No. 3634/2009, the respondents were required to re-examine the petitioner medically and take decision on the basis of this re-examination. They have erred in rejecting petitioner's claim on the basis of erstwhile medical report prepared on 22.04.2006.
4. Shri T.C. Singhal, learned counsel for the LIC, on the other hand, supported the order. He submits that petitioner's claim was examined as per relevant rules and he was not found eligible for grant of family pension. It is submitted that claim of family pension is to be examined on the date when the claimant became eligible for family pension under the Rules. To elaborate, Shri Singhal submits that the petitioner's case was examined by medical examiner approved by the LIC. The said examiner vide report dated 22.04.2006 opined that although petitioner required support while walking, he is able to perform the work in sitting position. By taking this court to para 4 and 5 of the impugned order, it is urged that basic reason for rejection of petitioner's claim is that at the relevant time the petitioner was examined by the medical authority and the said report dated 22.04.2006 is against the petitioner. In addition, by relying on para 6.6 of the return, it is contended that petitioner is a married person and as per Rule 56 of Pension Rules applicable to LIC, certain provisions of CCS (Pension) Rule 1972 are borrowed. He prayed for rejection of the petition.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The claim of pension is governed by Rules namely Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995 (Rules). These rules are filed as Annexure P/10. A perusal of Rule 40 of the Rules makes it clear that if the son / daughter of an employee is suffering from any disorder or disability of mind or is physically crippled or disabled so as to render him or her unable to earn a living even after attaining the age of twenty-five years, the family pension shall be payable to such son or daughter for life. However, this is subject to certain conditions mentioned in Rule 40 (1) (c). The following clauses are relevant :-
(i) if such son or daughter is one among two or more children of the employee, the family pension shall be initially payable to the minor children in the order set out in clause (e) of sub-rule (1) until the last minor child attains the age of twenty-five and thereafter the family pension shall be resumed in favour of the son or daughter suffering from disorder or disability of mind or who is physically crippled or disabled and shall be payable to him or her for life.
(iv) before allowing the family pension for life to any such son or daughter, the Competent Authority shall satisfy that the handicap is of such a nature as to prevent him or her from earning his or her livelihood and the same shall be evidenced by a certificate obtained from a medical officer approved by the Corporation, setting out, as far as possible, the exact mental or physical condition of the child;
(Emphasis supplied)
7. A plain reading of aforesaid provision makes it clear that when son / daughter is physically crippled or disabled, the family pension is payable to him for life. However to examine his nature of handicap, the person needs to be examined by the Medical Officer approved by Corporation. In the present case, the petitioner has filed his medical certificate and has categorically pleaded that he is crippled and his height is less than three feet. The order passed in WP No. 3634/2009 shows that petitioner contended before this Court that his height is less than three feet. The order further shows that the petitioner appeared before this Court in person. This Court prima facie found that petitioner is not leading a normal life. This court remitted the matter back with following directions :-
What as per rules the respondents were required to consider was whether the petitioner is physically crippled so as to rendered him unable to earn his livelihood even after attaining the age of 25 years. In the facts and circumstances of the case, order Annexure-P/11 passed by the respondent No.1 is set aside with a direction to the appellate authority to re-decide the appeal on merits after getting the petitioner medically examined by a Doctor approved by the respondents. Petitioner shall submit the full facts to the effect how the petitioner is handicapped, academic qualification, family status, the property (movable and immovable) received by the petitioner from his parents on affidavit. After submission of an affidavit and also after obtaining the medical certificate, appellate authority shall be given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Appellate Authority shall decide the appeal keeping in view the relevant provision of the rules. It is made clear that while deciding the appeal, the petitioner shall remain present before the appellate authority on the date intimated to him for hearing by the appellate authority through registered post. Needful be done within four months.
8. It is not in dispute between the parties that after aforesaid directions of this Court, the petitioner was re-examined by medical officer of LIC. The said officer by medical report dated 04.06.2012 opined that petitioner is unable to work ( Para 2 and 5 of Annexure P/ 1). However, the petitioner's claim was rejected on the ground that the subsequent medical report dated 04.06.2012 need not to be followed. The earlier medical report dated 22.04.2006 needs to be considered because it was prepared at the point of time when the claimant became eligible for family pension .
9. In the opinion of this court, the reason given by LIC cannot be upheld. A plain reading of the direction issued by this Court in WP No. 3634/2009 makes it clear that appellate authority was directed to redecide the appeal on merits, after getting the petitioner medically examined by a doctor approved by the respondents. Thus, a fresh medical examination was directed by this Court after giving a prima facie finding that petitioner is unable to lead a normal life. In absence of challenge to this order, it has attained finality. Respondents have subjected the petitioner to re-medical examination by the Doctor, who by report dated 04.06.2012 opined that petitioner is unable to work. The basic purpose of inserting Rule 40 is to provide family pension for life to such son / daughter who are crippled or disabled and unable to earn their livelihood. This beneficent provision is introduced in order to provide helping hand to son / daughter, who cannot earn their livelihood. There is no reason to disbelieve the medical report dated 04.06.2012 which certifies that petitioner is unable to work. In the considered opinion of this Court, once prima facie finding is given by this Court in WP. No.3634/2009 and matter was directed to be reexamined by approved Doctor and a fresh decision is directed to be taken, the earlier medical report dated 22.04.2006 has lost its complete shine. In other words, the earlier medical report dated 22.04.2006 has lost its significance after issuance of direction of this Court in WP No. 3634/2009.
10. Considering the aforesaid, the impugned order needs to be interfered with because it is based on erstwhile certificate which cannot be relied upon to deny the relief to the petitioner. In para 6.6 of the return the respondents have stated that when there exists no express provision in the pension Rules of LIC, the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 shall be applicable. This provision has no application here. Firstly, the Rule 40 of the Pension Rules of LIC contains the enabling provision for grant of family pension to the petitioner and therefore, CCS Pension Rules have no application. Secondly, Annexure R/1 relied by the respondents is a Railway Board letter dated 10th August, 2005. The said letter by no stretch of imagination, can be made applicable here.
11. As analyzed above, respondents have erred in rejecting the claim of pension to the petitioner. Resultantly, impugned order dated 5th July 2012 is set aside. The respondents are directed to grant family pension to the petitioner from due date with arrears and other consequential benefits. The family pension be started in favour of the petitioner within 30 days from the date of communication of this order. The arrears of pension from due date be paid to the petitioner within four months.
12. The petition is allowed. No costs.