<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2008 (3) TMI 783 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309069</link>
    <description>Rule 75 of the Family Pension Scheme for Railway Servants, 1964 extends family pension beyond age twenty-five to a son or daughter with a mental or physical disability that renders the child unable to earn a livelihood. The deleted pre-1995 explanation requiring the disability to have manifested before retirement or death could not be relied on to refuse the benefit. A denial based only on non-disclosure in retirement papers was also unsustainable because an administrative order must stand on the reasons recorded in it, and not on later justifications. On the material, the disabled son&#039;s substantive eligibility was established and family pension for life was due.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Aug 2023 17:19:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=722150" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (3) TMI 783 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309069</link>
      <description>Rule 75 of the Family Pension Scheme for Railway Servants, 1964 extends family pension beyond age twenty-five to a son or daughter with a mental or physical disability that renders the child unable to earn a livelihood. The deleted pre-1995 explanation requiring the disability to have manifested before retirement or death could not be relied on to refuse the benefit. A denial based only on non-disclosure in retirement papers was also unsustainable because an administrative order must stand on the reasons recorded in it, and not on later justifications. On the material, the disabled son&#039;s substantive eligibility was established and family pension for life was due.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309069</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>