Legal heirs cannot claim pension or compassionate appointment when the deceased casual labourer was never regularized.

The applicant, Rajendra Saini, claimed to be the legal heir of Late Shri Nathu Lal, who had worked as a Casual Labourer under the North Western Railway for an aggregate period of 144 days in broken spells between 10 March 1980 and 10 November 1986.

His engagement was discontinued on 10 November 1986, and he was never re-engaged thereafter.

He was not shown to have completed 120 days of continuous service, was not regularized, and was not absorbed into regular Railway service.

After approximately 27 years, Nathu Lal filed an application seeking temporary status and regularization.

During its pendency, he died on 16 April 2018, and the application was dismissed as withdrawn on 12 September 2019 when his legal representatives sought to pursue their claims through departmental representations.

The applicant thereafter sought family pension for his mother, compassionate appointment for himself, and recognition of his father’s service as absorbed or regularized.

The Railway authorities rejected the claims on the grounds that Nathu Lal’s name was not in the live Casual Labour Register, there was no credible record granting him temporary status, and he had never been regularized.

1. Whether the applicant, as the legal heir of a deceased casual labourer, could seek recognition of his father’s services as temporary, absorbed, or regularized when the father himself had never obtained such status?

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to family pension and compassionate appointment as consequential benefits, despite the deceased having never become a regular Railway servant?

3. Whether the claim was liable to be rejected on account of the prior proceedings, extraordinary delay, and the deletion of the deceased’s name from the Casual Labour Register under the Railway Board’s circular dated 22 November 1984?

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

It applied the principle that engagement as a casual labourer, temporary status, medical examination, or completion of a specified period of casual service does not by itself confer regular appointment, absorption, or permanent status; such status requires compliance with the applicable rules and an appropriate order of regularization.

The Tribunal further applied the Railway Board Circular dated 22 November 1984, under which the name of a casual labourer disengaged on completion of work and not re-engaged within two calendar years was liable to be deleted from the Casual Labour Register.

It also applied the principle that legal heirs cannot claim, by stepping into the shoes of the deceased, a substantive service status or benefits that the deceased employee had neither acquired nor successfully established during his lifetime.

The Tribunal found that Nathu Lal had worked only for 144 days in intermittent spells over several years and had not worked continuously for 120 days.

His engagement ended on 10 November 1986, after which he was never re-engaged, and there was no order conferring temporary status, regular appointment, absorption, or regularization.

Under the Railway Board Circular dated 22 November 1984, his continued absence from service for more than two years justified deletion of his name from the live Casual Labour Register.

The Tribunal further held that the earlier application filed by Nathu Lal had been argued and thereafter withdrawn following his death.

The applicant could not use a fresh application to revive the same substantive claim for regularization by presenting it as a claim for family pension and compassionate appointment.

Since pension and compassionate appointment were claimed as consequences of regular Railway employment, and Nathu Lal had never acquired regular employee status, the applicant had no enforceable entitlement to those benefits.

The prolonged delay—approximately 27 years before the first claim and nearly 34 years before the present application—also weighed against granting regularization or absorption.

Consequently, the claims for family pension and compassionate appointment also failed because Nathu Lal had never become a regular Railway servant.

The Original Application was dismissed, with no order as to costs, and all pending miscellaneous applications were closed.