UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus REKHA MAJHI

Citation: [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1058 · Decided: 06-04-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE, Y.K. SABHARWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
REKHA MAJID 
APRIL 6, 2000 
[V.N. KHARE AND Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.] 
Railways Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. 
Rule 21-0bject and interpretation of 
Pensioner-Employee-Whether entitled to draw two dearness reliefs-
Ongm the salary and other on the f amity pension. 
Railway employee-Death-Widow getting family pension-Subsequently 
appo(nted on compassionate ground-Held widow is not entitled to draw two 
dearness reliefs one on the salary and other on family pension.,--Held object of 
Rule 21 (ii) is that a pensionei- cannot enjoy two dearness reliefs simultaneously, 
one on his pension and the other on his salary if he takes up re-employment-
171e expression "re-employed", if construed in the light of the object behind the 
Rule and facts of this case, would also include first regular appointment in the 
service-Denying the respondent dearness reliefs on her family pension was 
justified-However on the facts of the case recovery of excess pension paid to 
the respondent is not justified on legal and equitable grounds. 
Union of India & Ors. v. G. Vasudevan Pillay & Ors., [1995) 2 SCC 
32, relied on. 
p 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 679of1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.4..95 of the Central Administra-
tive Tribunal, Calcutta in O.A. No. 968 of 1994. 
Praveen Swarup, A.K. Sharma, Mrs. Rekha Pandey for the Appellants. 
G 
R.K. Gupta, H. V.P. Sharma, R~jesh, M.K. Singh for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The sole question that aiises in this case is whether the respondent 
herein is entitled to deamess relief on the family pension admissble to her even 
H 
after getting appointment on compassionate ground in the railways. 
1058 
U.0.1. v. REKHA MAJID 
1059 
It is not disputed that the husband of the respondent was a railaway 
employee and he died in harness. It is not disputed that the family pension as 
well as gratuity, provident fund and all other retirement benefits which were 
admissible to the husband of the respondent were given to her. In addition to 
that, the railways gave compassionate appointment to the respondent. The 
respondent continued to draw salary as a railway employee as well as family 
pension till 25th January, 1994 when it was discovered that the respondent was 
not entitled to draw two dearness reliefs i.e. one on the salary and the other 
on the family pension. Consequently, the appellants re-fixed the family 
pension of the respondent after deducting dearness reliefs and issued orders 
for recovery of dearness relief paid to her on family pension. Aggrieved by 
this order the respondent filed an 0.A. before the Central Administrative 
Tribunal, Calcutta. The Tribunal was of the view that since the respondent was 
not re-employed as contemplated under rule 2l(ii) of the Rules, she was 
entitled to :lraw dearness relief on the salary as well as on the family pension. 
Consequently, the O.A. was allowed. It is against this order the appellants are 
in appeal before this Court. 
Rule 21 of the Railways Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 reads thus : 
"Rule 21. Dearness relief on pe_nsion or family pension 
(i) 
(ii) If a pensioner is re-employed under the Central or a State 
Government or a Corporation, Company, Body or Bank under 
such Government in India or ab1Vad including permanent 
absorption in such Corporation, Company, Body or Bank he 
shall not be eligible to draw dearness TT!lief on pension or family 
pension during the period of such re-employment. " 
On the strength of the said rule it is contended by the counsel for the 
appellants t1at the respondent having become employee of the railways, she 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
was not entitled to draw dearness relief on the family pension given to her. 
Whereas the contention of the respondent's counsel is that it is not a case of 
G 
re-employment but is a case of first regular employment in the railways and, 
therefore, R1le 21 has no application in the present case and she is entitled 
to draw dearness relief on the salary received by her as well as on the family 
pension given to her. 
It is well-known that dearness relief or allowance is being paid to 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
1060 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000) 2 S.C.R. 
compensate the employees against rise in the price index. The question that 
arises is, whether such an employee is entitled to draw two dearness reliefs 
- one on the salary and the other on the family pension paid to him. 
We 

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