JUDGMENT : Order dated 8-9-2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, Bench Jabalpur in O.A. No. 186/2009 is being assailed vide this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By impugned order the Tribunal while allowing Original Application has directed the petitioners herein to issue appropriate orders in favour of respondent/applicant, granting him Family Pension in terms of Rule 54(6) (iv) of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter to be referred to as Rules of 1972). 2. The original application in turn was directed against the communication dated 9-1-2009, whereby, General Manager (Administration) Ordnance Factory, Khamaria, informed respondent applicant the decision rendered by the Board constituted to assess the earning capacity of his livelihood in furtherance to an order passed in O.A. No. 123/2008 and as contemplated under Rule 54(6)(iv) of 1972 Rules. The Board assessed him having capacity to earn his livelihood. Accordingly, his claim for grant of family pension was declined. 3. The Family Pension was claimed by the petitioner, in lieu of death of his father, Dashrath Singh, who retired as Charge-man II, Ordnance Factory Khamaria on attaining the age of Superannuation on 31-5-1980 died on 1-2-2004, on the strength of Rule 54(6)(iv) of 1972 Rules, he being 40 % disabled and a bachelor. 4. Respondent preferred two original applications: O.A. No. 228/2007 and O.A. No. 123/2008 besides a Contempt Petition No. 35/2007, before filing O.A. No. 186/2009. 5. Original Application No. 228/2007 was disposed of on 10-4-2007 with the direction to respondents to consider the claim and pass a reasoned and speaking order. In course of its implementation petitioner, employer, by order dated 18-12-2007 rejected the claim on the ground that the respondent applicant failed to produce certificate from the Civil Surgeon in relation to his capacity to earn livelihood. This order was questioned in O.A. No. 123/2008 wherein by order dated 7-11-2008 the Tribunal quashed the order dated 18-12-2007, with a direction to employer Petitioner to consider respondent applicant's medical certificate issued by the District Medical Board, Victoria (S.G.D) Hospital, Jabalpur. This order was questioned in O.A. No. 123/2008 wherein by order dated 7-11-2008 the Tribunal quashed the order dated 18-12-2007, with a direction to employer Petitioner to consider respondent applicant's medical certificate issued by the District Medical Board, Victoria (S.G.D) Hospital, Jabalpur. In compliance to said direction, General Manager Ordnance Factory Khamaria referred the matter to a Board comprising of Principal Medical Officer of the Factory Hospital and a Senior Class I Officer to asses and find out for his own satisfaction as to whether the handicap of the respondent applicant is of such nature so as to prevent him from earning his livelihood. This direction was despite of the fact that a duly constituted District Medical Board has assessed him 40% disabled suffering from PPRP (Rt) LLR [paraplagia of Right Lower Limb which as per Mosbys' Medical Dictionary, 1999 means "An abnormal condition characterized by motor or sensory loss in lower limbs". This condition may or may not involve the back and abdominal muscles and may cause either complete or incomplete paralysis]. 6. Be that as it may. The Competent Authority after considering the report from the said Board declined to grant Family Pension to respondent/Applicant holding that he does not suffer from any disorder or disability of mind or physically crippled or disabled which would prevent him from earning his livelihood. Upon challenge the Tribunal on the basis of rival submission and taking into consideration the fact that the Board constituted by General Manager, Ordnance Factory Khamaria comprising of Principal Medical Officer cannot be treated to be the Medical Officer "Medical Officer not below the rank of a Civil Surgeon" and placing reliance on section 2(p) of Person with Disability (Equal Opportunity Protection of Right and Full Participation) Act, 1995; wherein, the medical authority has been defined to be a hospital or institution specified for the purpose of Act by notification by appropriate authority set aside the order passed by the Competent Authority; whereby, respondent applicant was declined the benefit of Family Pension with a direction to the authorities to grant the family pension. 7. Tribunal observed : "9. 7. Tribunal observed : "9. It is undisputed fact that applicant had produced medical certificate issued by the District Medical Board comprising of three senior specialists of their respective field including Orthopaedic specialist, MHO, RMO acting as Member and President of District Invaliding and Medical Board, Jabalpur, M. P., certifying that as per 1995 Act his physical disability is 40% and he suffers from "PPRP ® LL.R stands for right leg "LL" stands for lower limb. Ex facie said certificate, issued by competent authority under the 1995 Act cannot be either ignored or circumvented by constituting the so called medical board of factory hospital. Furthermore, the Board constituted by respondent No. 2 consisting of only one person from medical field and other belonging to administrative side. Could such board's recommendation override, nullify and erase the effect, findings and importance of three top most senior medical officers constituting the Board formed under the Act of Parliament, namely 1995 Act. As noticed hereinabove, repeatedly it has been urged by the respondents that said medical board was constituted to assess: "his capacity or otherwise of earning livelihood", In our considered view bare perusal of Rule 54(6)(iv) ibid extracted hereinabove, would reveal that the mandate of said rules in that the appointing authority should satisfy that the handicap is of such a nature so as to prevent from his earning or livelihood. Further requirement of the rule is that a certificate has to be obtained from a medical officer not below the rank of "Civil Surgeon". It is not the case of the respondents that Principal Medical Officer of the factory hospital has been declared and notified as "Civil Surgeon" under the aforesaid rules or 1995 Act. Similarly mandate of said rule is what has to be satisfied is that the person is handicap. The conclusion derived by respondent No. 2 that "he is capable of earning his livelihood if he takes normal initiative" is based on hypothesis, mere surmises and conjectures. Whether respondent No. 2 examined applicant's educational qualification, physical strength, age and other relevant factors to conclude that he had earning capacity "if he takes normal initiative". Apart from conveying that he is capable of earning livelihood, what were the basis and factors which led to this decision has not been slightly indicated and revealed. Whether respondent No. 2 examined applicant's educational qualification, physical strength, age and other relevant factors to conclude that he had earning capacity "if he takes normal initiative". Apart from conveying that he is capable of earning livelihood, what were the basis and factors which led to this decision has not been slightly indicated and revealed. If he was able to walk without support few yards, for a short duration, could it be construed that he is physically able to bear the strain and stress of a regular job even of mean nature. As far as capacity to earn livelihood is concerned, does it mean he should adopt means of begging in streets? The family pension being a welfare scheme has to be construed liberally and not in pedantic manner. The welfare State is required to adopt an approach which advances the welfare of the people and not otherwise, which is ex facie retrograde. 10. Respondent No. 2 while arriving aforesaid conclusion had been influenced by the so called medical board constituted by it which is a nullity in the eyes of law. Aforesaid Rule 54(6)(iv) did not empower and authorize it to constitute such a medical board and to be guided by its recommendations. Rather the mandate of the rule is to decide further course of action based upon medical certificate issued by the medical officer not below the rank of Civil Surgeon. 12. Furthermore it is not the specific stand of the respondent that the Principal Medical Officer of Factory hospital is either Civil Surgeon or "medical authority" within the meaning of section 2(p) of the 1995 Act specified for the purposes of said Act. The stand of the respondents noticed hereinabove would bring it out, without any vagueness that respondent No. 2 who was to act independently, acted at the behest and recommendations of so called board and therefore such a decision following aforesaid judgment can not be approved in law. 14. The 1995 Act, was formulated as the India was a signatory to Proclamation adopted on the Full Participation and Equality of People with Disability in the Asian and Pacific Region, to remove any discrimination against persons with disability in the sharing of development benefits, to counteract any situation of the abuse and the exploitation of persons with disabilities as well as to make special provision for the integration of such persons into the social main stream. It is admitted fact the applicant, by a competent medical board under the aforesaid Act has been declared physically disabled to the extent of 40%. Therefore, respondent No. 2 being a functionary of the welfare State was expected to act in furtherance of the object of the Act and not to create a situation where he could have been abused and exploited because of disability. Respondent No. 2 was expected to deal the applicant with sympathy and humane consideration but it acted in otherwise in complete derogation and negation of the mandate of aforesaid Act. In Management of M/s Nally Bharat Engineering Co. Ltd vs. State of Bihar and ors., (1990) 2 SCC 48 Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphasized and explained as under: "20............................................Fairness, in our opinion, is a fundamental principle of good administration. It is a rule to ensure the vast power in the modern State is not abused but properly exercised. The State power is used for proper and not for improper purposes. The authority is not misguided by extraneous or irrelevant consideration. Fairness is also a principle to ensure that statutory authority arrives at a just decision either in promoting the interest or affecting the rights of persons. To use the time hallowed phrase "that justice should not only be done but be seen to be done" is the essence of fairness equally applicable to administrative authorities. Fairness is thus a prime test for proper and good administration." (Emphasis supplied) We may also note that in (1980) 2 SCC 752 Charles K. Skaria and others vs. Dr. C. Mathew and others, (vide para 23) it was observed that "we are aware that when a statute vests a public power and conditions the manner of exercise of that power then the law insists on that mode of exercise alone". To similar effect observations were made in (1984) 3 SCC 161 (vide para 58) Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India and others, which read thus : "If there is a statute prescribing a judicial procedure governing the particular case the Court must follow such procedure. It is not open to the Court to bypass the statute and evolve a different procedure at variance with it". Furthermore in (2004) 6 SCC 440 (vide para 29) Captain Sube Singh and others vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and others, observed as follows : "29. It is not open to the Court to bypass the statute and evolve a different procedure at variance with it". Furthermore in (2004) 6 SCC 440 (vide para 29) Captain Sube Singh and others vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and others, observed as follows : "29. In CIT vs. Anjum M. H. Ghaswala, (2002) 1 SCC 633 a Constitution Bench of this Court reaffirmed the general rule that when a statute vests certain power in an authority to be exercised in a particular manner then the said authority has to exercise it only in the manner provided in the statute itself [See also in this connection Dhananjaya Reddy vs. State of Karanataka, (2001) 4 SCC 9 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 652]. The statute in question requires the authority to act in accordance with the rules for variation of the conditions attached to the permit. In our view, it is not permissible to the State Government to purport to alter these conditions by issuing a notification under section 67(1)(d) read with sub-clause (I) thereof. (Emphasis supplied) 15. Aforesaid law, in the present case has been violated with impunity. The respondent No. 2 has neither acted fairly nor promoted the interest of the applicant; rather respondent No. 2 was misguided by extraneous and irrelevant consideration. No fairness was shown at any stage. Instead of acting with sympathetic consideration and promoting interest of physically disabled person, it acted in a total superficial manner and circumvented mandate of rule by adopting an approach as if he was competent to change and amend the rule and implicitly laid down a new procedure simply to oust a disabled of some legally due benefits duly recognized by the statute. Instead of acting justly, it adopted defiant approach. The respondent's action is not wedded to the rule of law and is totally allergic to fairness in action. The duty cast upon respondent No. 2 was to act fairly, impartially and reasonably and not unfairly or unjustly. Following such a course of in effect amounts to amending the statutory rules by an executive order and ignoring the mandate of valid statutory rules." 8. Question is whether the Tribunal is justified in giving wide and expanded meaning to the provision contained in Rule 54(6)(iv) of 1972 and whether the certificate issued by the District Invaliding and Medical Board satisfy the condition precedent for grant of family pension. 9. Question is whether the Tribunal is justified in giving wide and expanded meaning to the provision contained in Rule 54(6)(iv) of 1972 and whether the certificate issued by the District Invaliding and Medical Board satisfy the condition precedent for grant of family pension. 9. Rule 54 of 1972 Rules, relates to provision regarding Family Pension, brought in vogue since 1-1-1964. 10. Sub-rule (6) provides for the period for which Family Pension is payable. In case of widow or widower, upto the date of death or remarriage, whichever is earlier [54(6)(i)]. In the case of son, until he attains the age of twenty five years, [54(6)(ii)]. In the case of an unmarried daughter, until she attains the age of 25 years or until she gets married, whichever is earlier [54(6)(iii)]. 11. Exception however, has been carved out by way of proviso, which stipulates that if the son or daughter of a Government Servant is suffering from any disorder or disability of mind including mental retarded or is physically crippled, or disabled so as to render him or her unable to earn a living even after attaining the age of 25 years the family pension shall be payable to such son or daughter for life. The proviso has been subjected to certain conditions. 12. In the present case Clause (iv) is relevant, which stipulates : "(iv) before allowing the family pension for life to any such son or daughter, the Appointing Authority shall satisfy that the handicap is of such a nature so 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 not below the rank of a Civil Surgeon setting out, as far as possible, the exact mental or physical condition of the child." 13. Rule 54 of 1972 Rules since deals with Family Pension, it aims to achieve the benefit to the categories of person mentioned therein. The exception carved out by virtue of proviso aims at expanding the applicability of Rule 54. In other words, subject to conditions being fulfilled, the proviso brings, within the ambit of Family Pension even the sons and daughters having crossed 25 years of age. The provision being beneficial in nature its operation cannot be curtailed by construing it narrowly. If narrowly construed the purpose for which it is introduced will reduce to futility. In other words, subject to conditions being fulfilled, the proviso brings, within the ambit of Family Pension even the sons and daughters having crossed 25 years of age. The provision being beneficial in nature its operation cannot be curtailed by construing it narrowly. If narrowly construed the purpose for which it is introduced will reduce to futility. (Please See: The Chairman Board of Mining Examination and Chief Inspector of Mines and another vs. Ramjee, AIR 1977 SC 965 page 968; Principles of Statutory Interpretation: Justice G. D. Singh : 13th Edn: Chapter I Synopsis 2 page 18). The expression "the handicap is of such a nature so as to prevent him or her from earning his or her livelihood", is therefore not to be construed strictly to mean that since any one can earn his livelihood and therefore even a handicap person can also earn his livelihood. But it is to be seen from the angle of such handicapped person who has been dependant as his capacity to earn by himself has depleted because of being handicapped. 14. True it is that, the disability must be such that substantially limits a major life activity such as carrying for oneself, working or having sensory functions. In the case at hand, as apparent from clause (iv) of proviso to sub-rule (6) of Rule 54 of Rules 1972 it is not sufficient alone that the handicap is of such a nature so as to prevent him or her from earning his or her livelihood, it is imperative that such a nature shall be "evidenced by a certificate obtained from a medical officer not below the rank of a Civil Surgeon to the effect that he or she continues to suffer from disorder or disability of mind or continues to be physically crippled or disabled." 15. Apparent it is from the material on record that the General Manager Ordnance Factory Khamaria, despite the petitioner being in possession of the Certificate issued by District Invaliding and Medical Board, comprising of Orthopaedics Specialist determining the petitioner suffering from PPRP (Rt) LL (which certified "Bharat Sarkar, Samaj Kalyan Mantralaya Ke Adesh Krammank 4-2/83 HW.3 Dinank 6 August, 1986 Ke Anusar Avam Ka Aaa-908(Aa) Kendriya Sarkar Nishakt Vyakti Saman, Adhikaron Ka Sanrakshan Aur Purna Bhagidari Adhiniyam, 1995 (1996 Kal) Ke Anusar Viklangtha Ka Pratishat 40% Shabdon Mein Fourty Percentage Tatha Yah Moderate Viklang Ki Shreni Mein Ata Hai) constituted a Board consisting of the Principal Medical Officer. It is not clear, from the record as to whether he is an orthopaedic expert. The Board tendered the certificate that the nature of petitioner's handicap is not such as would not prevent him from earning. This becomes the foundation for rejecting petitioner's claim. The Tribunal has dwelt upon this aspect of the matter eloquently as would warrant any further analysis thereon. Suffice it to say that merely because a person may earn his livelihood even with physical limitation cannot be construed in the given case rendering the respondent appellant ineligible for family pension under Rule 54(6)(iv) of 1972 Rules. 16. In view whereof we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Order accordingly.