Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
PRABHAVATI DEVI
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/01/1996
BENCH:
SUHAS C SEN
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The appellant herein is the window of Late Bipin Kumar
Rai who was a temporary Railway servant in this manner : He,
initially, was taken in the Railway Establishment as a
casual worker; and w.e.f. 27.4.83 he acquired the status of
a ‘substitute’. According to the definition given in Rule
2315 of the terms and conditions applicable to ‘substitute’
in temporary service, they are persons engaged in the Indian
Railway Establishments on regular scales of pay and
allowances applicable to posts against which they are
employed. These posts may fall vacant on account of a
railway servant being on leave or due to non-availability of
permanent or temporary railway servants and which cannot be
kept vacant.
The deceased kept working as a ‘substitute’ till 5.1.87
when he died. But, before his demise, he came to acquire
certain rights and privileges under Rule 2318 of the Rules
applicable to Railway Establishments. The said rule provides
that substitutes shall be afforded all the rights and
privileges as may be admissible to temporary railway
servants, from time to time, on completion of 6 months’
continuous service. Indubitably, the deceased had worked
beyond 6 months and that too continuously. Having become a
temporary servant in this manner, he became entitled to
family pension under sub-rule 3(b) of Rule 2311; whereunder
it is provided that the widow/minor children of a temporary
Railway servant, who dies while in service after a service
of not less than 1 year continuous (qualifying) service
shall be eligible for a family pension under the provisions
of para 801 of the Manual of Railway Pension Rules. Further,
in their case the amount of death gratuity admissible will
be reduced by an amount equal to the employee’s 2 months’
pay on which the death gratuity is determined. The Railways
have paid to the appellant gratuity under this sub-rule, but
have denied to her the family pension. Her claim before the
C A T, Patna Bench, Patna, was dismissed which has
culminated into this appeal.
On the acquisition of temporary status derived in the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
manner stated above, it is difficult to sustain the orders
of the Tribunal and to deny family pension to the widow and
children of the deceased. See in this connection for support
L Robert D’Souza Vs. Ex. Engineer, Southern Railway and Anr.
(1982 1 SCC 645 and U.O.I. and Ors Vs. Basant Lal and Ors.
(JT 1992 (2) SC 459). We have put the proposition to the
learned counsel appearing for the Railways but he is unable
to support the orders of the Tribunal; overlooking as it
does the chain in consequence, making the deceased acquire a
temporary status and on his demise his widow and children
acquiring the right to claim family pension.
We, thus, allow this appeal; set aside the impugned
orders of the Tribunal and allow the claim to family pension
as projected by the appellant. We also direct the railway to
work out the pension due within 2 months from today and
deliver the pension as also the arrears to the appellant
within 15 days thereafter, if not earlier and also pay
interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date it was
due till payment.
The appellant shall get her costs throughout.