JUDGMENT : EASWARAN S., J. 1. Can a claim for disability benefit be declined by the authorities on the ground that a 100% deaf and dumb person with complete blindness in the left eye could maintain himself by earning a livelihood. The report of the Medical Board which holds so by Railway Establishment found favour with the Central Administrative Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’, for short). Faced with the said situation, the applicant had come up with this Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Succinctly the facts are as follows: The applicant is the disabled son of late V Rajan Pillai, who was an employee of South Central Railway and had voluntarily retired on 28.2.2005, later expired on 1.6.2018. Mrs. T. Radhamma, the wife of late V Rajan Pillai also expired on 19.11.2021. After the expiry of his parents, the applicant claimed disability pension with the respondents. The death certificates, the income certificate and also the disability certificate were produced before the respondents. However, obviously for strange reasons, the claim of the petitioner was turned down under Annexures A14 and A15. The reason for turning down the claim is evident from Annexure A12. The respondents appeared before the Tribunal and raised their defense by placing reliance on Rule 75(6) (d) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 (‘the Pension Rules’ for short). 3. The Tribunal, on consideration of the materials on record, dismissed the Original Application on 14.12.2023 on the ground that the applicant is not entitled to have the disability pension on the ground that the Medical Board had certified that he is perfectly capable of earning his livelihood. 4. We have heard Sri. Jijumon H, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K.R. Rajkumar, the learned CGC. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the order of the Tribunal is perverse and the Tribunal clearly erred in dismissing the Original Application. The reliance placed by the respondents to Rule 75 (6)(d) of the Pension Rules is totally inapplicable insofar as the disability of the petitioner is clearly proved by Annexure A12 certificate. Still further, reliance placed on Annexure A12 to the extent that the petitioner is capable of earning his livelihood has no rational basis and hence suffers from a vice of arbitrariness and non-application of mind. Still further, reliance placed on Annexure A12 to the extent that the petitioner is capable of earning his livelihood has no rational basis and hence suffers from a vice of arbitrariness and non-application of mind. He further contended that the Tribunal erred in blindly relying on the said certificate and dismissing the Original Application, hence the same is liable to be interfered with by this Honourable Court in exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. On the other hand, the learned Central Government Counsel pointed out that the petitioner cannot claim disability benefit because of the specific bar under Rule 75(6)(d) of the Pension Rules. He would further point out that as per Annexure A12, the petitioner is certainly capable of earning his livelihood and therefore the disability pension cannot be granted to him. 7. We have considered the rival submissions raised across the Bar. 8. Before we give reasons for our finding, it is appropriate to extract the contents of Annexure A12: 1 Name & age of the candidate Sri. Satheesh Raj Pillai, 46 years 1. A black mole on right hand middle, 2 Identification Marks 2. A black mole on forehead left 3 Disease Diagnosed as Deaf & Dumb with blindness in left eye No locomotive deficiency 4 Percentage of disability 100% for hearing 5 Percentage of earning capacity Capable of earning livelihood 6 Relationship with the employee Son 7 Particulars of the Railway Employee As above 8 Why the certificate issued Not recommended for inclusion of physically disabled son in secondary family pension 9. A reading of Annexure A12 would no doubt show that the Medical Board has assessed the percentage of earning capacity as the one capable of earning livelihood. We thus are called upon to decide whether, the assessment of disability and also the capability of earning by the incumbent as opined by the Medical Board is perverse or vitiated by non application of mind. No doubt, the findings of the Medical Board cannot be subjected to judicial scrutiny. However, we are mindful of the fact that if the finding is perverse and based on no materials on record, certainly the same could be interfered with by the Courts. No doubt, the findings of the Medical Board cannot be subjected to judicial scrutiny. However, we are mindful of the fact that if the finding is perverse and based on no materials on record, certainly the same could be interfered with by the Courts. We are, however, not called upon to assess the disability of the petitioner nor to opine on the sustainability of the findings of the Medical Board qua the disability of the petitioner. However, even after finding that there is 100% disability, the Medical Board has found that the petitioner is capable of earning livelihood. Therefore, the point which we have to consider is that, after noting that the petitioner is 100% disabled, whether the finding rendered in Clause 5 of Annexure 12 could be sustained. We have no hesitation to hold that such a finding cannot be sustained even for a moment. It is pertinent to note that the reliance placed by the respondents on Rule 75(6)(d) of the Pension Rules is also equally fallacious. 10. Rule 75(6)(d) of the Pension Rules reads as follows: (d) 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 Board comprising of a Medical Director or a Chief Medical Superintendent or incharge of a Zonal Hospital or Division or his nominee as Chairperson and two other members, out of which at least one shall be a specialist in the particular area of mental or physical disability including mental retardation setting out, as far as possible, the exact mental or physical condition of the child. 11. A reading of the above Rule shows that the sanctioning authority should itself satisfy that the handicappedness is of such a nature so as to prevent the incumbent from earning his or her livelihood and the same shall be evident by a certificate obtained by the Medical Board, therefore, it is clear that the sanctioning authority need not always be guided by the report of the Medical Board but can independently decide qua sanctioning of the disability pension or otherwise. 12. 12. The very aim and object of providing family pension to physically challenged son/daughter of a deceased pensioner is a benevolent legislation commensurate with the mandate enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Every power vested in a public authority is to sub-serve the same, and must invariably be exercised to promote interest. The rule of law stands for the view that decisions should be made by the application of known principles or laws. In general, such decisions will be predictable, and the citizen will know where he is. In exercise of the powers, the court would be justified to quash the decision of the authority if it finds that the very decision is antithesis to the very object of the Rule or serves the ends of justice. 13. Poverty and blindness are believed to be intimately linked. Blindness also exacerbates poverty by limiting educational & employment opportunities. There are numerous visually challenged persons who are physically and mentally well but incapable of earning livelihood because of inaccessibility of proper infrastructure in pursuing education. Such types of visually challenged persons are dependent upon their parents or relatives, if any, or resort to begging for their survival. This is a blunt but naked truth which needs to be accepted. Therefore, cases of physically challenged need to be considered sympathetically by the authorities. Railways, being a model employer and India being a welfare State, where rules have been made for making it easier for physically challenged persons to live with dignity, it is expected from Railway authorities to act accordingly. It must be noted that the family pension is not a charity but a right, not bounty but justice for the disabled wards of employees who have no means to earn livelihood and were dependent on their parents till they were alive. We cannot be a party to such an insensitive approach of the Railways towards disabled persons who are perpetually knocking the doors of Court for justice. The approach of the courts in such cases should be definitely pragmatic and not to show insensitivity towards the cause. Viewed at any angle, we cannot subscribe to the findings rendered by the learned Tribunal in the order impugned. 14. The approach of the courts in such cases should be definitely pragmatic and not to show insensitivity towards the cause. Viewed at any angle, we cannot subscribe to the findings rendered by the learned Tribunal in the order impugned. 14. We cannot be oblivious of the fact that a person like the petitioner becomes helpless if the Medical Board, despite finding that there is 100% disability as deaf and dumb had chosen to opine that such a person is capable of earning his livelihood. It passes one comprehension as to how such a finding could be rendered by the Medical Board. Therefore, in our considered view, the finding rendered by the Medical Board on the earning capacity of the applicant is completely opaque. The sanctioning authority clearly erred in accepting the report and thus showing insensitivity towards a hapless disabled applicant. The penury was further compounded by the failure on the part of the Tribunal to appreciate the true cause projected by the applicant. In our considered view, the findings of the Tribunal thus cannot be sustained. 15. Resultantly, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. The Original Petition is allowed. Exhibit P4 order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal suffers from jurisdictional infirmity and thus calls for interference. Accordingly the same is set aside. The Original Application filed by the petitioner would stand allowed. Consequently, the order passed by the respondents rejecting the claim of the petitioner for secondary family pension is thus set aside. The respondents are directed to quantify the family pension and release the same including the arrears with 9% interest per annum from the date of eligibility till disbursal, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment.