Step-Son Not Eligible To Claim Family Pension Under Railway Pension Rules: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court has held that a stepson is not eligible to claim family pension under the Railway Rules. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 307] The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice N Senthilkumar noted that under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules 1993, family pension could be granted only to persons who fell under the definition of “family” as provided under the Act. Noting...
The Madras High Court has held that a stepson is not eligible to claim family pension under the Railway Rules. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 307]
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice N Senthilkumar noted that under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules 1993, family pension could be granted only to persons who fell under the definition of “family” as provided under the Act. Noting that a stepson is not included in the definition of “family”, the court held that he could not claim a family pension.
“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,” the court observed.
The court was hearing a petition filed by the General Manager of Southern Railways against an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal directing it to pay family pension to the stepson of a deceased employee.
The step-son had filed an original petition before the CAT claiming family pension under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules with respect to his father, who served in the Railways and died on September 24, 2008. The tribunal passed an order in favour of the son, by relying on Rule 70 of the Pension Rules.
Challenging the order, the Railway argued that the gratuity due to the deceased employee was already settled n favour of the step-son under Rule 70. It was pointed out that the family pension was governed by Rule 75 of the Rules, which provides the definition of “family”, in which the step-son was not included.
Agreeing with the submission, the court noted that the family pension had to be granted strictly in accordance with definition of “family” provided under the Act. Thus, the court allowed the plea and set aside the order of the Tribunal.
Counsel for Petitioners: Mr. A. R. Sakthivel (SPCCG)
Case Title: Union of India and Another v The Registrar and Another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 307
Case No: W.P.NO.26142 OF 2024