INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND ANR. versus SAN TOSH

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 255 · Decided: 16-10-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

INDIAN COUNCIL OF AG RI CULTURAL RESEARCH AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
SAN TOSH 
OCTOBER 16, 2006 
[ARIJIT PASA VAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Pension-Family Pension-Entitlement to-To the legal heir of deceased 
temporary employee-Deceased employee, a casual labourer holding C 
temporary status in view of a scheme-On his death claim for family pension 
made by his widow-Denied-Application-Allowed by Tribunal holding the 
legal heir entitled to the pension directing regularization of the deceased 
employee on the date of his death-Order upheld by High Court on ground 
that the legal heir was given compassionate appointment-On appeal, held: D 
In view of the provisions of the Scheme, the legal heir of the deceased 
employee was not entitled to family pension-Direction of Tribunal for 
regularisation of the deceased employee not correct-Mere grant of 
compassionate appointment to the legal heir cannot alter the status of the 
deceased employee in service-Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status 
and Regularisation) Scheme of Government of India, 1993-Clauses 4, 5 and E 
6. 
Respondent was denied family pension and other terminal benefits by 
the appellant on the ground that her deceased husband was not holding 
permanent status in service. She filed application seeking the reliefs, and F 
the same was allowed by Central Administrative Tribunal holding that though 
her deceased husband was not holding permanent status in service, yet she 
was entitled to the family pension and other benefits by treating him to have 
been regularized on the date of his death. Writ Petition against the order of 
the Tribunal was also dismissed holding that since the respondent had been 
given compassionate appointment, there was no merit in the Writ Petition. 
G 
In appeal to this Court appellant contended that respondent was not 
entitled to the reliefs sough as her deceased husband was only a casual 
labourer who had acquired temporary status in view of Casual Labourers 
(Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of Government of 
~5 
H 
256 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 
A India, 1993, and that the Tribunal could not have directed regularization and 
grant of family pension. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. A bare reading of the provisions of the Casual Labourers 
B (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of Government of 
India, 1993 makes it clear that the wife of the deceased employee was not 
entitled to any family pension. The direction given by the Tribunal for 
regularization is contrary to the ruling of this Court. (258-H( 
Secretary, State of Karnatka and Ors. v. Umadevi (3) and Ors., (2006] 
C 4 SCC I, relied on. 
2. Merely because compassionate appointment has been granted to the 
legal heir of the deceased employee, that does not in any way improve the 
situation so far as the respondent is concerned. That is an appointment given 
D to a legal heir even if it is accepted to be a regular, subsequent to the death of 
the employee and such appointment cannot alter the status of the deceased 
employee in service. (260-AI 
E 
F 
G 
Gita Rani Santra v. Union of India and Ors., reported in 1997-2001 At 
Full Bench Judgment p.295, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4499 of2006. 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 21.2.2005 of the High Court 
Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. I 038 of 
2005. 
A. Sharan, A.S.G., L.B. Gaur, S.S. Nehra, Dipali Tandon and Gargi Khanna 
for the Appellants. 
Jitendra Shanna, B.K. Pal and P.N. Jha for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. Leave granted. 
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division 
Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur dismissing the writ petition 
H filed by the present appellants questioning correctness of the order passed 
IN DIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICUL TURALRESEARCHv SANTOSH [PASA YAT,J] 
257 
by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench (in short 'CAT'). 
A 
The controversy lies within a very narrow compass. 
Respondent filed O.A.No.291 of2003 before the CAT making a grievance 
that family pension and other terminal benefits were being denied to her by 
the present appellant on the ground that her deceased husband was not B 
holding permanent status in service. CAT held that though her deceased 
husband Durga Lal was not holding a permanent status in service, yet 
respondent was en

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