MADURAI: The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has observed that pensioners’ children, who suffer intellectual disability, should be given family pension on submission of medical certificate evidencing his or her incapacity to earn livelihood on their own, without insisting on certificate denoting income from all sources.
A bench of justices GR Swaminathan and K Rajasekar made the observation recently while hearing an appeal filed by the principal accountant general of Tamil Nadu against an order passed by the court directing payment of family pension to the intellectually challenged son of a forester. While hearing the appeal, the judges said though the order had been complied with in this case, the daughter of a late judge with similar difficulties was not lucky and expressed anguish over the delay.
The judges recalled that the widow of former acting Chief Justice of Madras High Court TS Arunachalam received pension since 2020. After her death in June 2024, their younger daughter filed an application seeking family pension for her sister, who has physical and intellectual disability.
After submission of all documents, the accountant general’s (AG’s) office forwarded it to the Union Ministry of Law and Justice to obtain sanction from the President of India. Later, the AG’s office forwarded a letter from the Government of India seeking the very same set of documents and the matter is pending at this stage, the judges noted.
Expressing anguish over her struggle in getting pension, the judges called upon the Registrar General of Madras High Court to liaison with the authorities concerned and ensure that she gets family pension at the earliest.
They pointed out that both the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules and the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules make it clear that the son or daughter suffering from disorder or disability of mind, which prevents him or her from earning livelihood, will be entitled to family pension for life after the demise of the parents, upon production of a medical certificate proving the disability.
When the statutory rule doesn’t mention requirement of any other document, the authority cannot ask for anything more, the judges added. This issue was settled by the Supreme Court three decades ago and the said decision has been consistently followed.