Prabhavati
Devi Vs. Union of India & Ors [1996] INSC 40 (9 January 1996)
Suhas
C Sen
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
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 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 (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.
Back
Pages: 1 2
