NATWARLAL BHALABHAI VEGADA Vs. DIVISIONAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Shri Natwarlal Bhalabhai Gegada, belonging to Scheduled Caste of Vankar, has filed this petition and prayed that the impugned communication be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to grant life time family pension to the petitioner as per the provision of the Western Railway (Pension) Rules, 1993.

(2.) Petitioner has stated on oath, in this petition, that he is totally a blind man of 46 years and because of his blindness he could not marry. His father Bhala Kala was an employee of the Railways, who retired from service on 29.2.1988 and expired on 14.10.2003. His mother died on 31.1.1981. Since then he was looked after by his father. Thus, he was fully dependent on his father. On the death of his father the petitioner had applied for family pension, but by letter dated 15.11.2005 (ANNEXURE:A), on behalf of the DRM (E)BV, the Divisional Secretary, WRMS/BVP was informed that the petitioner was visually handicapped person and that he had taken training in Blind Training Center at Amreli and has also passed 8th Standard and, therefore, reasonable conclusion can be drawn that he was able to earn his livelihood and he can earn his livelihood. Therefore, the requirement under the Pension Rules was not fulfilled, hence he cannot be included in PPO for family pension. Hence, this petition.

(3.) On 20.2.2006 the Division Bench of this Court straightway issued Rule on it and ordered to place this matter for final hearing after the pleadings were completed in view of the fact that the petitioner was physically handicapped and deprived of pension. The pleadings have been completed and the matter was, on earlier occasion, placed before this Court on 14.7.2006. On 14.7.2006 it was submitted by Shri Pillai for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready and willing to serve Railways if he is appointed in the handicapped quota. Thereupon, he was asked to apply and accordingly the Application was made on 15.7.2006 by Shri Pillai, learned Counsel for the petitioner to the DRM, Bhavnagar. However, by letter dated 25/27.7.2006 his request was rejected on the ground that there was no provision or notification for recruitment of the petitioner against the handicapped quota and that he was 46 years of age and, therefore, he cannot be considered for the employment as per the existing rules. Shri Pillai has placed on record the copy of Application dated 15.7.2006 and the reply dated 25/27.7.2006.