Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 855
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10672 OF 2016
MALA DEVI …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
1. The Appellant herein is the widow of Late Shri Om
Prakash Maharaj, a temporary employee with the Eastern Indian
Railways, who died in harness on 10.07.1996, having completed
9 years 8 months and 26 days of service from the date of his
appointment on 15.10.1986.
Signature Not Verified
2. The Appellant had approached the Learned Central
Digitally signed by
Deepak Guglani
Date: 2025.07.16
15:19:18 IST
Reason:
Administrative Tribunal vide O.A./050/00276/2014 seeking
C. A. No. 10672 of 2016 Page 1 of 10
family pension from the date of death of her husband with all
consequential benefits along with interest at the rate of 18% per
annum, which was dismissed by the Learned Tribunal vide
Judgment/Order dated 23.12.2015. Vide the said decision, the
Learned Tribunal held that the claim of the Appellant was devoid
of any merit, inasmuch as in absence of a document for
regularization and permanent absorption of the husband of the
Appellant, Appellant is not entitled for the grant of family
pension. Even though, the deceased husband of the Appellant had
reached the stage of screening for regularization of his
employment with the Railways, the Learned Tribunal observed
that “ the screening will not confer any right to pension .”
3. Aggrieved thereby, the Appellant preferred a W. P. (C) No.
8524 of 2016 before the High Court of Judicature at Patna, which
was ultimately dismissed vide Impugned Order dated
12.05.2016. In drawing reference to the decision in Uttar
1
Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. v. Surji Devi , the High
Court observed that family pension is not admissible to the wife
of an employee whose services were not regularized. It was
further noted that since the service rendered by the husband of
the Appellant is 9 years 8 months and 26 days, it falls short of 10
years, which is the minimum qualifying service for grant of
1
[2008] 2 SCC 310
C. A. No. 10672 of 2016 Page 2 of 10
family pension. The said Order is under challenge before this
Court.
4. The factual conspectus of the captioned Appeal reveals
that the deceased, Mr. Om Prakash Maharaj, was appointed
“Summer Waterman”, Danapur, vide letter dated 15.10.1986
upon qualifying the medical examinations. Upon completion of
more than 7 years of continuous service as a Substitute Porter, he
cleared the Screening Test and was deputed at Garhara as a
Guard/Shuntman upon instructions of the Dy. Chief Yard Master,
Garhara. Unfortunately, on 10.07.1996, the deceased met with a
fatal accident while at work and died in harness.
5. The deceased kept working as a ‘substitute’ till his death
and had admittedly been in continuous service for 9 years 8
months and 26 days. Upon his demise, the Appellant wife has
received ex-gratia to the next kin of deceased and was
subsequently appointed as a Substitute Gangman on
compassionate grounds, and the employment was regularized
after completion of 120 days. The controversy arose when the
Appellant wife sought family pension, which has been denied by
the Railways on the premise that since the employment of the
deceased had not been regularized, the question of family
pension does not arise.
C. A. No. 10672 of 2016 Page 3 of 10
6. It was argued on behalf of the Appellant that Rule 1515 of
the Indian Railway Establishment Manual confers upon the
Substitutes, certain rights and privileges as may be admissible to
temporary railway servants, from time to time, on completion of
four (04) months of continuous service. In the same breadth,
reliance was also placed on Rule 18(3) Railway Service
(Pension) Rules, 1993 which extends benefit of family pension
and death gratuity in the event of death in harness of a temporary
railway servant on the same scale of a temporary railway servant.
The said Rule read in conjunction with Rule 75(2)(a) of the
Pension Rules, 1993 also confers upon the family of a railway
servant, family pension (hereinafter in this rule referred to as
family pension) under the Family Pension Scheme for Railway
Servants, 1964, in the event a railway servant dies after
competition of one year of continuous service. Indubitably, the
deceased was in service for 9 years 8 months and 26 days till the
date of his death, and in terms of the said provisions, has also
crossed the necessary threshold to be granted the status of a
temporary railway servant. The relevant provisions are
reproduced as under:
“Indian Railway Establishment Manual-Vol-I”
“ 1515- Rights and privileges admissible to the
Substitutes— Substitutes should be afforded all the
rights and privileges as may be admissible to
temporary railway servants, from time to time on
C. A. No. 10672 of 2016 Page 4 of 10
completion of four months continuous service.
Substitute school teachers may, however, be
afforded temporary status after they have put in
continuous service of three months and their
services and their services should be treated as
continuous for all purposes except seniority on their
eventual absorption against regular posts after
selection.
“Railway Pension Rules, 1993”
18. Pensionary, terminal or death benefits to
temporary railway servant. - (1) A temporary
railway servant who retires on superannuation or
on being declared permanently incapacitated for
further railway service by the appropriate medical
authority after having rendered temporary service
not less than ten years shall be eligible for grant of
superannuation, invalid pension, retirement
gratuity and family pension at the same scale as
admissible to permanent railway servant under
these rules.
________
Rule 75:
………
(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (18) and
without prejudice to the provisions contained in
sub-rule(4), where a railway servant dies,— (a)
after completion of one year of continuous service;
or (b) before completion of one year of continuous
service, provided the deceased railway servant
concerned immediately prior to his appointment to
the service or post was examined by the appropriate
medical authority and declared fit by that authority
C. A. No. 10672 of 2016 Page 5 of 10
for railway service; or (c) after retirement from
service and was on the date of death in receipt of a
pension, or compassionate allowance, referred to in
these rules, the family of the deceased shall be
entitled to family pension (hereinafter in this rule
referred to as family pension) under the Family
Pension Scheme for Railway Servants, 1964, the
amount of which shall be determined at a uniform
rate of thirty per cent. of basic pay subject to a
minimum of three thousand and five hundred rupees
per mensem and a maximum of twenty-seven
thousand rupees per mensem.”
7. Per contra , it was the contention of the Respondents that
the deceased had not completed 10 years in service which is the
minimum qualifying service for the grant of family pension and
as he was also not regularized, the question of grant of family
pension does not arise. It was further averred that the deceased
had also not been in continuous service as a substitute for more
than four (04) months, and the hence the status of a temporary
railway servant for the purposes of grant of family pension
cannot be extended to him. The Counsel for the Respondents has
argued that the argument in reference to Rule 1515 of the Railway
Establishment Manual and the Railway Pension Rules, 1993 was
not made by the Appellant before the courts below and cannot be
taken at this stage of the proceedings.
8. We have heard the submissions on behalf of both the
parties. The intervention of this Court is limited to the question
C. A. No. 10672 of 2016 Page 6 of 10
whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant
is entitled to family pension of her late husband, and whether a
denial of such relief is justified.
9. At the outset, we refer to the ratio in the case of Prabhavati
2
Devi v. Union of India & Ors. whereby this Court had extended
the relief of family pension of the widow of the deceased railway
servant, who had died in harness. It was held that the orders of
the Tribunal to deny family pension to the widow and children of
the deceased were unsustainable as the deceased had acquired the
temporary status and was already working at his regular post at
the time of his death. In the present case however, the deceased
was absorbed in service as a substitute in 1986, and served for 9
years 8 months and 26 days, just 3 months short of completing
the threshold of a decade in service. After one year of continuous
service, clearing his medical examination and screening, and
upon being subsequently deputed on a different post, on the
instructions of Dy. CYM, Garhara, he acquired the status of a
temporary railway servant for the purposes of the Railway
Service (Pension) Rules, 1993 and hence became entitled to the
benefit of family pension, as any other temporary railway
servant. Hence, in light of the decision in Prabhavati Devi
(supra) , the petitioner is certainly entitled for grant of family
pension.
2
AIR 1996 SC 752
C. A. No. 10672 of 2016 Page 7 of 10
10. Rule 75 of Railway Pension Rules, 1993, makes it further
clear that the qualifying service for a temporary railway servant
to be entitled for the grant of benefit of family pension is a
continuous service of one year. More so, this benefit of family
pension is accrued to the family of the deceased railway servant
who died in harness after completion of one year of continuous
service, without any discrimination, whether the post was
temporary or had been regularized. On this ground alone, the
denial of family pension accrued to the Appellant is unjustifiable.
11. We have further carefully examined the facts, and legal
principles applicable in the present case, and we find that the
argument canvassed by the Respondents in depriving the
Appellant of family pension from her deceased husband for not
completing 10 years of qualifying service by falling short of
hardly 3 months, is not in congruence with the legislative intent
of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual & the Railway
Pension Rules, 1993. The salutary purpose of the rules thereunder
is to extend the benefit of family pension to the families of those
servants who have served for a considerable strength of time. The
present case is not a case of a casual labourer being simply
accorded a temporary status, without any scrutiny or examination
as cautioned against in Clause 4.4. of the Master Circular issued
by the Ministry of Railways. The said Circular also gives a clear
mandate in clause 5.1 that substitutes who have acquired
C. A. No. 10672 of 2016 Page 8 of 10
temporary status were to be screened by a Screening Committee,
a stage which was admittedly passed by the deceased. It is an
admitted factum that the deceased had reached the necessary
stage of scrutiny/screening for regularization of the post, and had
been carrying out his services, literally till his last breath.
12. In the light of above statutory provisions governing the
field, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Appellant is
entitled for grant of family pension along with arrears of family
pension.
13. For the purpose of computation of family pension in the
present case, the family pension qua the deceased shall be
governed as per Rule 75 r/w Rule 18(3) Railway Service
(Pension) Rules, 1993 which extends benefit of family pension
and death gratuity in the event of death in harness of a temporary
railway servant on the same scale of a temporary railway servant.
The Respondents shall calculate the arrears of family pension and
shall pay the arrears as well as shall pay regular family pension
to the Appellant within a period of four months.
14. Resultantly, keeping in view the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, the plight of the Appellant who has
been pursuing the litigation seeking family pension since 2014,
and the salient purpose of a family pension to serve dependents
tide over the crisis, we further deem it appropriate exercise of our
C. A. No. 10672 of 2016 Page 9 of 10
power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, and award
ex-gratia amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the Appellant.
15. In light thereof, the Appeal is allowed. The Impugned
Order dated 12.05.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature
at Patna, and the Order dated 23.12.2015 passed by the Learned
Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna, are set aside. The
Respondents are directed to ensure compliance within four
months. Applications if any, stand disposed of.
……………………………………J.
[SANJAY KAROL]
……………………………………J.
[SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA]
NEW DELHI
July 16, 2025.
C. A. No. 10672 of 2016 Page 10 of 10
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10672 OF 2016
MALA DEVI …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
1. The Appellant herein is the widow of Late Shri Om
Prakash Maharaj, a temporary employee with the Eastern Indian
Railways, who died in harness on 10.07.1996, having completed
9 years 8 months and 26 days of service from the date of his
appointment on 15.10.1986.
Signature Not Verified
2. The Appellant had approached the Learned Central
Digitally signed by
Deepak Guglani
Date: 2025.07.16
15:19:18 IST
Reason:
Administrative Tribunal vide O.A./050/00276/2014 seeking
C. A. No. 10672 of 2016 Page 1 of 10
family pension from the date of death of her husband with all
consequential benefits along with interest at the rate of 18% per
annum, which was dismissed by the Learned Tribunal vide
Judgment/Order dated 23.12.2015. Vide the said decision, the
Learned Tribunal held that the claim of the Appellant was devoid
of any merit, inasmuch as in absence of a document for
regularization and permanent absorption of the husband of the
Appellant, Appellant is not entitled for the grant of family
pension. Even though, the deceased husband of the Appellant had
reached the stage of screening for regularization of his
employment with the Railways, the Learned Tribunal observed
that “ the screening will not confer any right to pension .”
3. Aggrieved thereby, the Appellant preferred a W. P. (C) No.
8524 of 2016 before the High Court of Judicature at Patna, which
was ultimately dismissed vide Impugned Order dated
12.05.2016. In drawing reference to the decision in Uttar
1
Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. v. Surji Devi , the High
Court observed that family pension is not admissible to the wife
of an employee whose services were not regularized. It was
further noted that since the service rendered by the husband of
the Appellant is 9 years 8 months and 26 days, it falls short of 10
years, which is the minimum qualifying service for grant of
1
[2008] 2 SCC 310
C. A. No. 10672 of 2016 Page 2 of 10
family pension. The said Order is under challenge before this
Court.
4. The factual conspectus of the captioned Appeal reveals
that the deceased, Mr. Om Prakash Maharaj, was appointed
“Summer Waterman”, Danapur, vide letter dated 15.10.1986
upon qualifying the medical examinations. Upon completion of
more than 7 years of continuous service as a Substitute Porter, he
cleared the Screening Test and was deputed at Garhara as a
Guard/Shuntman upon instructions of the Dy. Chief Yard Master,
Garhara. Unfortunately, on 10.07.1996, the deceased met with a
fatal accident while at work and died in harness.
5. The deceased kept working as a ‘substitute’ till his death
and had admittedly been in continuous service for 9 years 8
months and 26 days. Upon his demise, the Appellant wife has
received ex-gratia to the next kin of deceased and was
subsequently appointed as a Substitute Gangman on
compassionate grounds, and the employment was regularized
after completion of 120 days. The controversy arose when the
Appellant wife sought family pension, which has been denied by
the Railways on the premise that since the employment of the
deceased had not been regularized, the question of family
pension does not arise.
C. A. No. 10672 of 2016 Page 3 of 10
6. It was argued on behalf of the Appellant that Rule 1515 of
the Indian Railway Establishment Manual confers upon the
Substitutes, certain rights and privileges as may be admissible to
temporary railway servants, from time to time, on completion of
four (04) months of continuous service. In the same breadth,
reliance was also placed on Rule 18(3) Railway Service
(Pension) Rules, 1993 which extends benefit of family pension
and death gratuity in the event of death in harness of a temporary
railway servant on the same scale of a temporary railway servant.
The said Rule read in conjunction with Rule 75(2)(a) of the
Pension Rules, 1993 also confers upon the family of a railway
servant, family pension (hereinafter in this rule referred to as
family pension) under the Family Pension Scheme for Railway
Servants, 1964, in the event a railway servant dies after
competition of one year of continuous service. Indubitably, the
deceased was in service for 9 years 8 months and 26 days till the
date of his death, and in terms of the said provisions, has also
crossed the necessary threshold to be granted the status of a
temporary railway servant. The relevant provisions are
reproduced as under:
“Indian Railway Establishment Manual-Vol-I”
“ 1515- Rights and privileges admissible to the
Substitutes— Substitutes should be afforded all the
rights and privileges as may be admissible to
temporary railway servants, from time to time on
C. A. No. 10672 of 2016 Page 4 of 10
completion of four months continuous service.
Substitute school teachers may, however, be
afforded temporary status after they have put in
continuous service of three months and their
services and their services should be treated as
continuous for all purposes except seniority on their
eventual absorption against regular posts after
selection.
“Railway Pension Rules, 1993”
18. Pensionary, terminal or death benefits to
temporary railway servant. - (1) A temporary
railway servant who retires on superannuation or
on being declared permanently incapacitated for
further railway service by the appropriate medical
authority after having rendered temporary service
not less than ten years shall be eligible for grant of
superannuation, invalid pension, retirement
gratuity and family pension at the same scale as
admissible to permanent railway servant under
these rules.
________
Rule 75:
………
(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (18) and
without prejudice to the provisions contained in
sub-rule(4), where a railway servant dies,— (a)
after completion of one year of continuous service;
or (b) before completion of one year of continuous
service, provided the deceased railway servant
concerned immediately prior to his appointment to
the service or post was examined by the appropriate
medical authority and declared fit by that authority
C. A. No. 10672 of 2016 Page 5 of 10
for railway service; or (c) after retirement from
service and was on the date of death in receipt of a
pension, or compassionate allowance, referred to in
these rules, the family of the deceased shall be
entitled to family pension (hereinafter in this rule
referred to as family pension) under the Family
Pension Scheme for Railway Servants, 1964, the
amount of which shall be determined at a uniform
rate of thirty per cent. of basic pay subject to a
minimum of three thousand and five hundred rupees
per mensem and a maximum of twenty-seven
thousand rupees per mensem.”
7. Per contra , it was the contention of the Respondents that
the deceased had not completed 10 years in service which is the
minimum qualifying service for the grant of family pension and
as he was also not regularized, the question of grant of family
pension does not arise. It was further averred that the deceased
had also not been in continuous service as a substitute for more
than four (04) months, and the hence the status of a temporary
railway servant for the purposes of grant of family pension
cannot be extended to him. The Counsel for the Respondents has
argued that the argument in reference to Rule 1515 of the Railway
Establishment Manual and the Railway Pension Rules, 1993 was
not made by the Appellant before the courts below and cannot be
taken at this stage of the proceedings.
8. We have heard the submissions on behalf of both the
parties. The intervention of this Court is limited to the question
C. A. No. 10672 of 2016 Page 6 of 10
whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant
is entitled to family pension of her late husband, and whether a
denial of such relief is justified.
9. At the outset, we refer to the ratio in the case of Prabhavati
2
Devi v. Union of India & Ors. whereby this Court had extended
the relief of family pension of the widow of the deceased railway
servant, who had died in harness. It was held that the orders of
the Tribunal to deny family pension to the widow and children of
the deceased were unsustainable as the deceased had acquired the
temporary status and was already working at his regular post at
the time of his death. In the present case however, the deceased
was absorbed in service as a substitute in 1986, and served for 9
years 8 months and 26 days, just 3 months short of completing
the threshold of a decade in service. After one year of continuous
service, clearing his medical examination and screening, and
upon being subsequently deputed on a different post, on the
instructions of Dy. CYM, Garhara, he acquired the status of a
temporary railway servant for the purposes of the Railway
Service (Pension) Rules, 1993 and hence became entitled to the
benefit of family pension, as any other temporary railway
servant. Hence, in light of the decision in Prabhavati Devi
(supra) , the petitioner is certainly entitled for grant of family
pension.
2
AIR 1996 SC 752
C. A. No. 10672 of 2016 Page 7 of 10
10. Rule 75 of Railway Pension Rules, 1993, makes it further
clear that the qualifying service for a temporary railway servant
to be entitled for the grant of benefit of family pension is a
continuous service of one year. More so, this benefit of family
pension is accrued to the family of the deceased railway servant
who died in harness after completion of one year of continuous
service, without any discrimination, whether the post was
temporary or had been regularized. On this ground alone, the
denial of family pension accrued to the Appellant is unjustifiable.
11. We have further carefully examined the facts, and legal
principles applicable in the present case, and we find that the
argument canvassed by the Respondents in depriving the
Appellant of family pension from her deceased husband for not
completing 10 years of qualifying service by falling short of
hardly 3 months, is not in congruence with the legislative intent
of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual & the Railway
Pension Rules, 1993. The salutary purpose of the rules thereunder
is to extend the benefit of family pension to the families of those
servants who have served for a considerable strength of time. The
present case is not a case of a casual labourer being simply
accorded a temporary status, without any scrutiny or examination
as cautioned against in Clause 4.4. of the Master Circular issued
by the Ministry of Railways. The said Circular also gives a clear
mandate in clause 5.1 that substitutes who have acquired
C. A. No. 10672 of 2016 Page 8 of 10
temporary status were to be screened by a Screening Committee,
a stage which was admittedly passed by the deceased. It is an
admitted factum that the deceased had reached the necessary
stage of scrutiny/screening for regularization of the post, and had
been carrying out his services, literally till his last breath.
12. In the light of above statutory provisions governing the
field, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Appellant is
entitled for grant of family pension along with arrears of family
pension.
13. For the purpose of computation of family pension in the
present case, the family pension qua the deceased shall be
governed as per Rule 75 r/w Rule 18(3) Railway Service
(Pension) Rules, 1993 which extends benefit of family pension
and death gratuity in the event of death in harness of a temporary
railway servant on the same scale of a temporary railway servant.
The Respondents shall calculate the arrears of family pension and
shall pay the arrears as well as shall pay regular family pension
to the Appellant within a period of four months.
14. Resultantly, keeping in view the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, the plight of the Appellant who has
been pursuing the litigation seeking family pension since 2014,
and the salient purpose of a family pension to serve dependents
tide over the crisis, we further deem it appropriate exercise of our
C. A. No. 10672 of 2016 Page 9 of 10
power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, and award
ex-gratia amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the Appellant.
15. In light thereof, the Appeal is allowed. The Impugned
Order dated 12.05.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature
at Patna, and the Order dated 23.12.2015 passed by the Learned
Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna, are set aside. The
Respondents are directed to ensure compliance within four
months. Applications if any, stand disposed of.
……………………………………J.
[SANJAY KAROL]
……………………………………J.
[SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA]
NEW DELHI
July 16, 2025.
C. A. No. 10672 of 2016 Page 10 of 10