LexUNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus RABIA BIKANER ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. RABIA BIKANER ETC. JULY 7, 1997 B [K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.) Service Law : Family Pension Scheme for Railway Employees, 1964-Casual C labourer-Obtaining status of temporary workman after putting six months service-Death of workman before appointment to temporary post-Widow claiming family pension-Held, respondent-widow not entitled to family pen- sion-However, if any amount has been paid to her pursuant to orders of Tribunal, the same may not be recovered. D Ram Kumar v. Union of India, [1988) 2 SCR 138 and Union of India v. Sukanti & Anr., 97 (5) SCALE 494, relied on. Prabhavati Devi v. Union of India, [1996) 7 SCC 27, held inapplicable. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal NO. 4373 of E 1997 Etc. From the Judgment and Order dated 8.3.96 of the Central Ad- ministrative Tribunal Jodhpur in 0.A. No. 474 of 1994. A.M. Singhvi, Additional Solicitor General, H.L Aggarwal, A.D.N. F Rao, Arvind Kr. Sharma, Anubha Jain, S.W.A. Qadri, Indra Sawhney, D.P. G Mukherjee, B.K. Gupta, Nandini Mukherjee, S.K. Srivastava, K.L. Janjani, Sumant Bhardwaj, Devender Kr., G.L. Deveney and Mridula Ray Bhardwaj, for the appearing parties. The following Order of the Court was delivered : Leave granted. The question of law that arises for determination is: whether the widow of a casual labourer in Railway Establishment, who died after putting in six months' service and obtaining the status of a temporary H workman but before his appointment to a temporary post after screening 442 U.O.I.v. RABIABIKANER 443 is entitled to family pension under the 1964 Family Pension Scheme? This A question was considered by a Bench of this Court in Ram Kumar v. Union of India, [1988] 2 SCR 138 at 144. This Court had held thus: "It is the stand of the learned Additional Solicitor General that no pensionary benefits are admissible even to temporary·railway ser- vants and, therefore, that retiral advantage is not available to B casual labour acquiring temporary status. We have been shown the different provisions in the Railway Establishment Manual as also the different orders and directions issued by the Administration. We agree with the learned Additional Solicitor General that retiral benefit of pension is not admissible to either category of "C employees." The Railway Board in its letter bearing S. No. 3214-Circular No. 720-E/0-IX (Pension) dated October 26, 1965 after examining the question, had stated that "the Family Pension Scheme for Railways employees, 1964 D is applicable in the case of regular employees on pensionable estab- lishment. Since the casual labourers will be brought on to the pensionable establishment only on their absorption against regular temporary posts, it follows that they will come under the purview of the scheme from the date of their absorption against the regular temporary posts. In other words, the benefits of the Family Pension Scheme for Railway Employees, 1964 will E be admissible in the case of death of such an employee while in service, only if he had completed a minimum period of one year's continuous service from the date he was absorbed against a regular temporary post". F It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent-widows that under paragraph 2511 - "Rights and Privileges admissible to the casual labourers who are treated as temporary after completion of six months continuous service" - of the Railway Establishment Manual, they are en- titled to family pension. We find it difficult to give acceptance to the contention. It is seen that every casual labourer employed in the railway administration for six months is entitled to temporary status. Thereafter, G they will be empanelled. After empanelment, they are required to be screened by the competent authority and as and when vacancies for tem- porary posts in the regular establishment are available, they should be appointed in the order of merit after screening. On their appointment, they are also required to put in minimum service of one year in the temporary post. In view of the above position, if any of those employees who had put H 444 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. . . _ A in the required minimum service of one year, that too after the appoint- ment to the temporary post, died while in service, his widow would be eligible to pension under the Family Pension Scheme, 1964. In all these cases, though some of them have been screen
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.