“Temporary-Status Is Enough” – Supreme Court Unlocks Family Pension for Substitutes in Railway Service

Introduction

In Mala Devi v. Union of India & Ors., 2025 INSC 855, the Supreme Court of India decisively affirmed that a railway employee enjoying temporary status for at least one year confers an enforceable right to family pension upon his dependants, even if the employee dies short of ten years of service and without formal regularisation. The decision overturns contrary findings of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the Patna High Court, and marks a significant departure from departmental practice that treated substitute workers as pension-ineligible.

The appeal was brought by Mala Devi, widow of late Shri Om Prakash Maharaj, who died in harness after 9 years, 8 months, and 26 days of continuous service as a substitute porter/guard in the Eastern Railway. Despite ex-gratia and compassionate appointment benefits, the Railways declined family pension on the twin grounds that (1) the deceased lacked ten years’ qualifying service, and (2) his service was never regularised. The Supreme Court rejected both objections.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court held that Rule 75(2)(a) read with Rule 18(3) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 (“1993 Rules”) entitles the family of a temporary railway servant who has completed one year of continuous service to family pension and death gratuity.
Rule 1515 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (IREM) confers on substitutes who complete four months’ continuous service all benefits available to temporary employees; therefore the deceased enjoyed temporary-servant status.
The insistence on ten years’ service, propounded by the respondents and accepted by the lower fora, mis-read the 1993 Rules and ignored the benevolent purpose underpinning family pensions.
Invoking Article 142, the Court directed payment of arrears within four months and awarded an additional ex-gratia amount of ₹5,00,000 to alleviate prolonged hardship.

Detailed Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Surji Devi [2008] 2 SCC 310 – Previously relied upon by the High Court to deny pension where the employee’s services were not regularised. The Supreme Court distinguished this decision, clarifying that it dealt with a different statutory scheme and did not override the specific language of the 1993 Rules.
Prabhavati Devi v. Union Of India, AIR 1996 SC 752 – A directly analogous railway matter where family pension was granted to the widow of a substitute who had acquired temporary status. The Court treated Prabhavati Devi as binding precedent demonstrating that formal regularisation is not a prerequisite once temporary status is achieved.
Master Circular No. 54 (Railway Board) – While not a reported case, the Court referenced Clause 4.4 and 5.1 to show departmental recognition that substitutes screened for regularisation are effectively treated as temporary servants.

B. Legal Reasoning

Justice Satish Chandra Sharma adopted a purposive approach:

Statutory Interpretation: • Rule 75(2) uses the disjunctive “where a railway servant dies after completion of one year of continuous service”. • The proviso contains no requirement that the service be permanent. • Reading Rule 75 with Rule 18(3) and IREM 1515 leaves no doubt that substitutes move into the category “temporary railway servant” on fulfilling minimal service thresholds.
Equity and Beneficial Construction: Family pension is a socio-economic welfare measure meant to support dependants post-demise. Narrow or literal readings that frustrate the scheme defeat legislative intent.
De minimis Deviation: The deceased fell “short” by merely three months of the 10-year mark. The Court held that such a technicality cannot be allowed to rob dependants of livelihood, especially when a clear one-year rule exists.
Article 142 Powers: To do “complete justice”, an additional lump-sum was awarded, exemplifying the Court’s readiness to supplement statutory relief where administrative inaction prolongs litigation.

C. Potential Impact

The judgment has far-reaching consequences:

Railway Administration: Thousands of families of substitute/temporary employees who died before regularisation (or before ten years’ service) may now claim family pension retrospectively.
Other Central & State Services: Though technically limited to railways, the Court’s emphasis on benevolent interpretation of pension schemes will likely be cited in disputes under parallel rules governing casual, temporary, or contractual staff across departments.
Litigation Strategy: Employees/families may directly rely on IREM 1515 and Rules 75/18 without first exhausting regularisation mechanisms, shortening litigation cycles.
Administrative Reforms: Ministries may revise internal circulars to align with the Court’s view, curbing avoidable litigation and ensuring timely disbursal of pensions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Substitute: A person engaged against a regular post in lieu of a permanent employee who is absent or the post is temporarily vacant. After four months they acquire “temporary status”.
Temporary Railway Servant: An employee who, though not confirmed, is on the regular establishment with defined pay and tenure; enjoys most service benefits except security of tenure.
Family Pension: A monthly payment to eligible family members of a deceased employee, distinct from the employee’s own pension; governed for Railways by the Family Pension Scheme, 1964.
Rule 75(2)(a) – 1993 Rules: Provides that the family of a railway servant who dies after one year of continuous service is entitled to family pension.
Article 142, Constitution: Empowers the Supreme Court to pass any decree or order necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.

Conclusion

Mala Devi v. Union of India is a landmark pronouncement clarifying that temporary status plus one year’s service suffices for family pension entitlement within the Railways, rendering the earlier departmental insistence on ten-year service or formal regularisation unlawful. The decision harmonises statutory text with the humane objectives of pension law, provides tangible relief to the appellant, and sets a binding precedent likely to influence service jurisprudence well beyond the railway sector.