- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Union Of India And Others v. Rabia Bikaner And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The appeals concerned several widows of casual labourers employed in the Railway Establishment. Each deceased employee had completed six months of service, thereby attaining “temporary status,” but died before being screened and appointed to a regular temporary post. The widows applied for family pension under the Family Pension Scheme, 1964. The Central Administrative Tribunal granted their claims. The present decision resolves the Railway Administration’s appeals against that order.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the widow of a casual railway labourer who achieved temporary status after six months’ service, but died before appointment to a regular temporary post and before completing one year of service in such post, is entitled to family pension under the 1964 Family Pension Scheme.
Arguments of the Parties
Respondent Widows' Arguments
- Invoked paragraph 2511 of the Railway Establishment Manual, claiming that once a casual labourer acquires temporary status after six months’ continuous service, the rights and privileges of a temporary employee—including family pension—become available.
- Relied on the Supreme Court decision in Prabhavati Devi v. Union of India (1996) 7 SCC 27, where the widow of a “substitute” working on a regular scale of pay was granted family pension.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Ram Kumar v. Union of India, (1988) 1 SCC 306 | No pensionary benefits are available to temporary railway servants or to casual labourers who only acquire temporary status. | Treated as the governing authority; the Court followed it to deny family pension where the deceased was not absorbed against a regular temporary post. |
| Prabhavati Devi v. Union of India, (1996) 7 SCC 27 | Widow of an employee working as a “substitute” on a regular scale of pay is entitled to family pension. | Distinguished on facts; the deceased in the present appeals never worked against a regular post on a regular pay scale. |
| Union of India v. Sukanti (citation not provided in text) | Affirmed the principle in Ram Kumar that no retiral benefit accrues to widows of casual labourers not regularised. | Relied upon to reinforce the conclusion that the respondent widows are ineligible for pension. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court examined the 1964 Family Pension Scheme and the Railway Board’s Circular dated 26-10-1965, which restricts the Scheme to employees on the pensionable establishment. Casual labourers come under the Scheme only after:
- Absorption against a regular temporary post following screening and empanelment, and
- Completion of at least one year’s continuous service in that temporary post.
The deceased employees had obtained only temporary status after six months’ service; none had been appointed to a regular temporary post, nor had they completed one year’s service therein. Consequently, the statutory pre-conditions for family pension were unmet.
The Court rejected reliance on paragraph 2511 of the Railway Establishment Manual, stating that it confers limited temporary rights and does not override the explicit conditions of the Family Pension Scheme and the Railway Board Circular. It further held that Prabhavati Devi was inapplicable because the employee in that case worked as a “substitute” on a regular scale of pay, unlike the present deceased workers.
Consistent with Ram Kumar and Sukanti, the Tribunal’s contrary view was deemed legally unsustainable.
Holding and Implications
Appeals Allowed; Original Applications Dismissed.
The widows are not entitled to family pension because their husbands were never absorbed into regular temporary posts nor completed one year of service therein. Any amounts already disbursed under the Tribunal’s order need not be recovered, and no costs were imposed. The decision reaffirms existing Supreme Court precedent and does not create a new legal principle but clarifies the strict prerequisites for pension eligibility of casual railway labourers’ dependants.
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. The question of law that arises for determination is whether the widow of a casual labourer in the Railway Establishment, who died after putting in six months' service and obtaining the status of a temporary workman but before his appointment to a temporary post after screening is entitled to family pension under the 1964 Family Pension Scheme? This question was considered by a Bench of this Court in Ram Kumar v. Union of India (1988) 1 SCC 306, (1987) 5 ATC 404, (1988) 2 SCR 138 (SCR at p. 144). This Court had held thus:
“12. It is the stand of the learned Additional Solicitor General that no pensionary benefits are admissible even to temporary railway servants and, therefore, that retiral advantage is not available to 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 employees.”
3. The Railway Board in its letter bearing S. No. 3214-Circular No. 720-E/0-IX (Pension) dated 26-10-1965 after examining the question, had stated that “the Family Pension Scheme, 1964 for railway employees is applicable in the case of regular employees on pensionable establishment. 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, 1964 for railway employees will 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”.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent-widows that under para 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 entitled 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, they will be empanelled. After empanelment, they are required to be screened by the competent authority and as and when vacancies for temporary 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 in the required minimum service of one year, that too after the appointment 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 screened, yet appointments were not given since the temporary posts obviously were not available or in some cases they were not even eligible for screening because the posts become available after the death. Under these circumstances, the respondent-widows are not eligible for the family pension benefits.
5. The learned counsel strongly relied upon the judgment in Prabhavati Devi v. Union of India (1996) 7 SCC 27, (1988) 2 SCR 138. Therein, the facts were that from the year 1981 to 27-4-1993, the husband of the appellant had worked as casual worker and obtained the status of substitutes who were working, as defined under Rule 2315 of the Railway Establishment Manual, in a regular establishment on a regular scale of pay and allowances applicable to those posts in which they were employed. Since he died while working in the regular post, his widow became eligible to claim the benefits of the pension scheme. Thus, in that case, the appellant's husband was a substitute working in a regular scale of pay in the Railway Establishment. Obviously, he was screened and was also appointed to the temporary status but instead of being given appointment to a temporary post, he was treated as substitute and appointed to the vacancy when the regular candidates went on leave. Under these circumstances, this Court had held that the widow of such employee is entitled to the benefit of the family pension. The above ratio is inapplicable to the cases referred to hereinbefore. The question also was considered in a recent judgment of this Court in Union of India v. Sukanti wherein relying on the ratio in Ram Kumar case (1988) 1 SCC 306, (1987) 5 ATC 404, (1988) 2 SCR 138 this Court held that no retiral benefit was available to the widow of the casual labourer who had not been regularised till his death. Thus, we hold that the view taken by the Tribunal in granting the pensionary benefits to the respondents is clearly illegal.
6. The appeals are accordingly allowed and the OAs stand dismissed, but in the circumstances, without costs. However, if any amounts have already been paid pursuant to the orders of the Tribunal, the same may not be recovered from them.
Alert