GENERAL MANAGER, NORTH WEST RAILWAY & ORS. versus CHANDA DEVI

Citation: [2007] 13 S.C.R. 403 · Decided: 12-12-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

GENERAL MANAGER, NORTH WEST RAILWAY & ORS. 
A 
V. 
CHANDA DEVI 
DECEMBER 12, 2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] 
B 
Railway Establishment Manual-Chapter XX rr. 2001, 2002, 
2005-Casual labour-Attaining temporary status-Pensionary 
benefits (family pension)-Entitlement-Held: The employee was not c 
entitled to benefit of pensionary benefits under the Pension Rules-
There is distinction between casual labour having temporary status 
and a temporary employee-Moreover, the process for regularization 
. had started after the death of the employee-Direction for not 
recovering any benefit, if already granted-Railway Services (Pension) D 
~ 
Rules, 1993-Constitution of India, 1950-Article 142. 
Husband of respondent No.1 was appointed as a project casual 
labour. In a writ petition seeking regularization of similarly situated 
employees, a scheme for regularization was suggested and the same E 
was accepted by the Court, making the scheme effective w.e.t: 1.1.1981. 
Railway Administration, in terms of the Scheme, issued an Office Order 
for considering the casual workers as temporary employees. Name of 
the husband of respondent No.1 was specifically mentioned in the Order. 
By another Circular date of applicability of the Scheme was made F 
effective from 11.3.1983. Thereafter, in 1983 husband of respondent No. 
1 expired. Respondent No.1 applied for compassionate appointment. 
It was rejected on the ground that as per Railway Rules, pension was 
not admissible to substitute temporary employees. She filed original 
application questioning the validity of the Rules. Central Administrative G 
Tribunal allowed the same. Writ Petition filed thereagainstwas dismissed 
by High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
403 
H 
404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007) 13 (Addi.) S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: 1. The provisions of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 
1993, made in view of the proviso appended to Article 309 of the 
Constitution of India cannot be said to have any application in the instant 
case. \Vhatwas protected by conferring temporary status upon a casual 
employee was his service and by reason thereof the pension rules were 
B not made applicable. A workman had not been and could not have been 
given a status to which he was not entitled to. 
[Paras 10 and27] (411-E, F; 4~9-D] 
2. The Railway servants, if appointed on a regular basis, would 
enjoy a status having regard to the provisions contained in Article 309 
C of the Constitution oflndia. Recruitment Rules are applicable to the 
temporary and permanent government servants and they are governed 
by the Rules framed under the proviso appended to Article 309 of the 
Constitution oflndia. Their services are indisputably protected under 
Article311(2) thereof. (Para 12] [411-G; 412-A] 
D 
Moti Ram Deka etc. v. General Manager, NE.F Railways, Maligaon, 
Pandu, etc. AIR (1964) SC 600 and Khem Chandv. Union of India and 
Ors., AIR (1958) SC 300, relied on. 
E 
3. Chapter XX of Railway Establishment Manual provides for 
casual labour. The case of the employee in question was governed by 
Chapter XX of the Manual Rule2001 excludes the applicability thereof 
which govern the service conditions of permanent and temporary 
staff. [Paras 11and14] [411-F; 412-C) 
F 
Ram Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., [1988] 1 SCC 306 
and Union of India and Ors. v. Rabia Bikaner and Ors. [1997] 6 SCC 580, 
referred to. 
4. The contrast between a casual labour having a temporary status 
G and a temporary servant may immediately be noticed from the definition 
of a temporary railway servant contained in Rule 1501 occurring in 
Chapter XV of the Manual High Court failed to notice that when casual 
labour has been excluded from the definition of permanent or temporary 
employee, he with temporary status could not have become so and there 
H is no legal sanction therefor. It is for the legislature to put the employees 
) 
GENERAL MANAGER, NORTH WEST RAILWAY v. 
405 
CHANDA DEVI 
to an establishment in different categories. It may create a new category A 
to confer certain benefits to a particular class of employees. Such a 
power can be exercised also by the Executive for making rules under 
the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution oflndia. 
[Paras 20 and 26) [416-F,G; 418-H; 419-A,B] 
B 
Dakshin Railway Employees Union, Trivandrum Division v. General 
manager, Southern Railway and Ors., (1987) 1SCC677, referred to. 
5. In the Office Order dated 24.1.1

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.