Widow of a deceased temporary-status casual labourer is entitled to family pension through deemed regularisation.

The applicant’s husband, late Shri Ram Khilari, was engaged as a casual labourer by the Railways on 24 August 1976 and was subsequently granted monthly-rated casual labourer/temporary status on 3 January 1987. He continued to work under the Permanent Way Inspector, Morena, and died in harness on 25 May 1996, leaving behind the applicant, three sons and two unmarried daughters.

The applicant claimed family pension on the basis of his long service, his temporary status, and Railway Board instructions dated 3 September 1996 and 3 February 1999 concerning deemed regularisation of casual labourers who were on the rolls as on 30 April 1996 but died before formal regularisation.

The Railways rejected her claim, stating that her husband had not been regularised and that casual labourers were excluded from the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993.

In an earlier O.A. No. 71 of 2010, the Tribunal directed the respondents to reconsider the claim by passing a reasoned order. The claim was again rejected on 9 June 2010.

The applicant relied upon the Allahabad High Court’s decision in Smt. Bittan Devi Shukla v. Union of India, W.P. No. 38446 of 1998, which recognised entitlement to family pension for the widow of a long-serving casual labourer holding temporary status.

1. Whether the applicant’s husband, a casual labourer holding temporary status who was on the rolls as on 30 April 1996 and died in harness on 25 May 1996, could be deemed to have been regularised for the purpose of family pension?

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to family pension notwithstanding the fact that her husband had not been formally regularised before his death?

3. Whether the subsequent withdrawal of the Railway instruction dated 3 February 1999 by letter dated 15 September 1999 defeated the applicant’s accrued entitlement?

Rule 3(w) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 excludes casual labour from the definition of “railway servant”.

However, Rule 2005 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Volume II, permits casual labourers who have acquired temporary status to count the prescribed period of service rendered after acquiring such status and before regular absorption as qualifying service for pensionary benefits, subject to regular absorption.

The Tribunal relied principally on Smt. Bittan Devi Shukla v. Union of India, where the Allahabad High Court held that a casual labourer who had rendered long service after acquiring temporary status could be deemed to have been regularised for purposes of family pension, notwithstanding the absence of formal regularisation.

It also relied on Yashwant Hari Katakkar v. Union of India, 1996 SCC (L&S) 464, recognising deemed permanency for pension after long government service, and Prabhavati Devi v. Union of India, (1996) 7 SCC (L&S) 369, holding that family pension could be granted to the family of a railway substitute who had acquired temporary status but had not been regularised.

The Railway Board’s instructions dated 3 September 1996 and 3 February 1999 were treated as supporting deemed regularisation for eligible casual labourers who were on the rolls as on 30 April 1996 and subsequently died before formal regularisation.

The Tribunal held that although Rule 3(w) generally excluded casual labour from the pension rules and Rule 2005 contemplated regular absorption, those provisions could not be applied mechanically to defeat a claim for family pension arising from prolonged service and death in harness.

The applicant’s husband had served from 1976, acquired temporary status in 1987, remained on the rolls on the relevant cut-off date of 30 April 1996, and died shortly thereafter on 25 May 1996.

Applying Bittan Devi Shukla, the Tribunal treated his long service and temporary status as sufficient to support deemed regularisation for family-pension purposes, particularly because family pension serves a social-security function and addresses the hardship caused by the employee’s death.

The subsequent withdrawal of the 3 February 1999 instruction could not retrospectively deprive the applicant of the benefit applicable to her husband, since the relevant facts existed before the withdrawal and the withdrawal instruction itself stated that matters already settled need not be reopened.

The Tribunal therefore found the applicant’s case squarely covered by the High Court’s binding reasoning in Bittan Devi Shukla.

The Tribunal held that the applicant’s deceased husband was to be deemed regularised for the limited purpose of family pension, despite the absence of formal regularisation during his lifetime.

The respondents were directed to release family pension to the applicant and pay the arrears within three months from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

All connected miscellaneous applications were disposed of, with no order as to costs.