The General Manager,... v. The Divisional Railw...

G. Bhavani Prasad, J.:— Entitlement to or eligibility for pension and family pension of casual labour with temporary status vis-à-vis temporary railway servant is more or less the common question arising in this batch of 11 writ petitions and hence, they are heard and being disposed of by this common order with consent and at request.

2. The factual background for each of these writ petitions is as under:

W.P No. 10838 of 2001:

3. A. Ramanamma worked as Senior Gangwoman under PWI/BTTR in Bitragunta section of South Central Railway. The Chief Medical Superintendent, Vijayawada found her unfit for further service under Medical Certificate No. 89, dated 26-05-1994 and she was discharged from service with effect from 26-05-1994. She was paid only small amounts towards retiral benefits and was not paid invalid pension. She represented to the Divisional Manager, South Central Railway, Vijayawada on 02-01-1999, that she was in continuous employment of the railways since 1965 and having completed the qualifying service of more than 10 years, she was entitled to invalid pension. However, the General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad informed by a letter, dated 01-09-1999 that her net qualifying service was only 9 years and hence, she was paid service gratuity, retirement gratuity, Central Government Insurance and leave encashment as per rules, but she was not entitled to pensionary benefits from 1965, as she worked as casual labour on daily wages and was not entitled for monthly rates due to break in service. Then, she filed O.A No. 1726 of 1999 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (for short “the Tribunal”) contending that in W.P No. 1174 of 1982, the High Court accepted her employment as casual labour since 1965 and found her retrenchment in 1979 to be illegal. The Railway Administration was directed to pay arrears of wages up to the end of June, 1982. She further contended that even as per the Railway Board's letter, dated 14-10-1980, half the service rendered by casual labour after attainment of temporary status on completion of 120 days continuous service would be allowed to be counted towards pension, if such service was followed by absorption as a regular employee. But her service from 1965 to 1982 was not counted. As per Para-2001 of IREM (Indian Railway Establishment Manual) Volume-II, casual labour engaged in open line for more than 120 days without break are given temporary status, entitled to 1/30 of the minimum of the appropriate pay scale plus dearness allowance and as per Para-2005, 50% of such service shall be counted for purpose of pensionary benefits. The Supreme Court also directed payment of initial stage of pay as a temporary employee, to casual labour completing 120 days. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench also held similarly in O.A No. 1020 of 1992, and the order issued on 09-06-1994 cannot have retrospective effect from 26-05-1994 in discharging her from service. Therefore, she filed the application O.A No. 1726 of 1999 before the Tribunal to direct payment of pensionary benefits taking into account 50% of the service rendered from 1965 to 09-06-1994.

4. The Railway Administration contested the claim stating that Ramanamma was granted temporary status only with effect from 01-01-1983, which cannot be challenged after 16 years, as the same is barred by limitation under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Though she worked on daily wages as casual labour from 13-01-1965 with intermittent breaks, she was screened and absorbed as Gangwoman with effect from 16-09-1987. After she was declared medically unfit and discharged from service, she was paid all settlement dues as per rules. Casual labour engaged in open line and on project works stand on a different footing and hence, Ramanamma was contended to be not entitled to the claim.

5. The Tribunal referring to its decisions in similar cases, holding that the total service for conferment of temporary status is required to be taken into account, allowed the application accordingly.

6. The Railway Administration filed the writ petition to quash the said judgment dated 21-11-2000 contending that the judgment was based on the judgment in O.A No. 82 of 1990 in respect of project casual labour and the Supreme Court reversed the same in Union of India v. K.G Radhakrishna Phanikar 1998 (2) SLR 710 = (1998) 5 SCC 111 , AIR 1998 SC 2073 in tune with the law declared in Union of India v. Rabia Bikaner 1998 (1) SC ASLJ 181 = 1997 SCC (L&S) 1524 = (1997) 6 SCC 580 , AIR 1997 SC 2843. The direction of the Tribunal violates Para-2005(c) of IREM Volume-II and the Master Circular No. 54 and Rule 3(23) of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. A railway servant does not include casual labour and the Supreme Court also held in V. Kameswari v. Union of India JT 1993 (1)SC 108 that casual labour are entitled to benefits only after regular absorption. Similar was State of Haryana v. Piara Singh (1992) 4 SCC 118. The Tribunal deviated from its own decisions in other cases and its judgment has to be reversed.

7. In W.P.M.P No. 13468 of 2001, the operation of the impugned judgment was suspended till further orders, on 07-06-2001.

W.P No. 15356 of 2001:

8. Ayyamma filed O.A No. 1274 of 1999 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench claiming that her husband Adam, who was initially engaged as casual labour, was granted temporary status and monthly scale of pay in the grade of Gangman with effect from 21-07-1969 in PWI/BG/Guntakal. Adam's name was included in the list of APS Gangmen eligible for empanelment and absorption when permanent vacancies of gangmen arose on 31-12-1980. However, Adam was called for screening test after two years, but he could not attend due to health reasons. In a similar situation, benefit was extended to one C. Narayana and the benefit of compassionate appointment to his ward and family pension to his wife were granted on the basis of deemed empanelment of C. Narayana who was also not screened by the Screening Committee prior to his death on 21-12-1989. Though Ayyamma made several representations for similar treatment, her request was rejected by a memo, dated 20-08-1992 on the ground of Adam not appearing before the Screening Committee on 22-12-1982 and 01-02-1983. Hence, she requested for grant of family pension to her.

9. The Railway Administration resisted the claim stating that Adam was initially engaged as a casual labour on daily wages and was granted temporary status on completion of 180 days of service. He was irregular and was frequently absenting himself from duty. He did not attend the screening test on 22-12-1982 and 01-02-1983 and was, in fact, continuously absent from duty. He did not produce any medical certificate for his sickness and his qualifying working days were reduced due to his continuous unauthorized absence. Hence, he became ineligible for being called for the screening test. Ayyamma is not entitled to family pension, as Adam expired while working as casual labour with temporary status, but she was appointed as casual labour on compassionate grounds and after completion of 120 days of continuous service, temporary status was granted to her and she was given monthly pay as per scales.

10. The Tribunal noted in its order dated 07-07-2000 that C. Narayana referred to by Ayyamma had attended the screening test on 13-06-1988 before his death, but it observed that temporary service without interruption till confirmation would count for qualifying service for pension. Referring to the decisions of other Benches, the Tribunal held that Adam was entitled to receive pensionary benefits by treating the entire service from the date of joining as qualifying service under the Pension Rules. Adam was also considered to be included within the meaning of ‘railway servant’ as given in the Pension Rules. The Tribunal also felt that not undergoing the screening test is not a disqualification for pension even if it comes in the way of regularization or subsequent promotion. The Tribunal, therefore, directed the respondents before it to work out the pensionary benefits of Adam with effect from the date on which temporary status was conferred on him and the consequent family pension to which Ayyamma becomes entitled and pay within three months. The period of unauthorized absence was, however, permitted to be excluded from the qualifying service and the consequential pensionary benefits. Review applications by the Railway Administration also failed before the Tribunal.

11. The Railway Administration filed the writ petition challenging the said orders contending that Adam rendered service as casual labour with temporary status for 5 years 4 months and 22 days only and is not entitled to pension. Ayyamma appointed on compassionate grounds on daily wages from 26-04-1993 was granted temporary status from 24-08-1993 on completion of 120 days of continuous service and was absorbed in Group-D post of Gangwoman Khalasi and is continuing as such. Adam was unauthorisedly absent from 07-02-1982 to 01-08-1991 till his death, which amounts to abandonment of service without any intimation. In the impugned order of the Tribunal, it was noted that the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Radhakrishna Phanikar (1 supra) reviewed the order of Chennai Bench of the Tribunal and held that no retiral benefit was available to the widow of the casual labour who had not been regularized till his death. Union of India v. Rabia Bikaner (2 supra), Kameswari v. Union of India (3 supra), State of Haryana v. Piara Singh (4 supra), etc., declared that a casual labour not appointed to a post, has no right for retiral benefits. Only half of the service after attaining temporary status will qualify for pensionary benefits after absorption. The Tribunal took a different view in some other cases and hence, the impugned orders have to be set aside.

12. The impugned judgment of the Tribunal was suspended as per orders in W.P.M.P No. 19212 of 2001, dated 31-07-2001.

W.P No. 8793 of 2002:

13. S. Sathaiah Balaiah was appointed as casual labour on 19-05-1969 and he attained temporary status on 19-11-1973 as CMR carpenter. He attained CMR Artisan status with effect from 23-01-1980 after passing the trade test and he was declared to be working as CMR Khalasi after trade testing and passing different cadres of skilled posts. He was given CMR scale in Artisan cadre with effect from 26-03-1980. He died on 04-01-1981 and due to his continuous service from 15-05-1969 (19-05-1969?) to 04-01-1981, he was eligible for all pensionary benefits. He left his wife S. Kalavathi, four sons and two daughters. Kalavathi represented to the Administration for compassionate appointment to her son and settlement of pensionary benefits. No action was taken for sanction of pensionary benefits and settlement of dues and the Pension Rules and the Family Pension Scheme entitle Kalavathi to the sanction of pensionary benefits and she filed O.A No. 807 of 2001 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench for the purpose.

14. The Administration opposed the request, as the request was hopelessly barred by time being filed 20 years after the cause of action without any reasons for the delay. The record showed that Sathaiah Balaiah was appointed on 19-11-1973 and his employment till his death on 04-01-1981 was temporary in nature. He was not regularized in any of the regular posts and he or his widow were not eligible for any pensionary benefits. Sathaiah Balaiah or Kalavathi are not entitled to any pension or family pension in the light of the decisions of the Apex Court and hence, the Railway Administration desired the request to be negatived.

15. The Tribunal rendered the impugned order, dated 27-09-2001 and considered the deceased to be not a railway servant in terms of Para (Rule?) 3(23) and is not a substitute in terms of Rule 3(26) of the Railway Pension Rules, 1993 and hence, the deceased or Kalavathi are not entitled to pension. The Tribunal followed Union of India v. Rabia Bikaner (2 supra), in which it was held that the widow of the casual labour in railway establishment, who died after acquiring temporary status but had not been regularized till death, shall not be entitled to family pension and hence, dismissed the petition. A petition for review in R.A No. 76 of 2001 was dismissed on 09-01-2002.

16. Kalavathi filed the writ petition contending that Sathaiah Balaiah put in 11 years 8 months service including 4 years 6 months with temporary status and the balance regular service as carpenter. She and her four sons and two daughters are facing starvation and they are eligible for pension and family pension. The decisions of the Apex Court and the High Court upheld such entitlement and hence, she desired a direction for grant of family pension and compassionate appointment to her son, Jagadeesh.

W.P No. 20126 of 2004:

17. Ch. Satyanarayana was appointed as a casual labour with effect from 10-09-1963 and was granted temporary status with effect from 10-05-1967. Subsequently, the date of temporary status was changed to 10-01-1964 as per the order, dated 27-06-1995 in O.A No. 320 of 1995 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. He was absorbed against a regular post on 29-06-1984 and retired on 30-06-1984. After his death on 11-01-1991, his wife Koteswaramma applied for family pension, which was denied stating that Satyanarayana did not complete minimum eligible service of 10 years for pension/family pension. The Tribunal directed in O.A No. 320 of 1995 on 27-06-1995 to reconsider her case and pass a detailed speaking order within two months. Then the Railway Administration sent two letters dated 20-05-1996 and 16-01-2003 stating that there was unauthorized absence of 406 days not counting towards qualifying service resulting in short fall for the completion of minimum of 10 years qualifying service. Whether this period was treated as unauthorized absence and declared as dies non following due procedure, was not stated and Satyanarayana served the railways for more than 21 years. When Koteswaramma sent a representation again, again the letter dated 28-04-2003 was issued reiterating the earlier allegations. Then Koteswaramma filed O.A No. 996 of 2003 for grant of pension/family pension.

18. The Railway Administration resisted the request contending that the service register and leave chart of Satyanarayana are not traceable. While Koteswaramma was advised on 20-05-1996 about the ineligibility of Satyanarayana for pension, an O.A was filed on 10-09-2003, which is, hence, barred by limitation. O.A.S.R No. 2981 of 2000 was filed by Koteswaramma on 06-09-1999 challenging the letter, dated 20-05-1996 along with a delay condonation M.A No. 751 of 2000 seeking the same relief and the matter was dismissed on 17-11-2000 for non-prosecution. The letter, dated 28-04-2003 is only a reiteration of the advice given on 20-05-1996 and the Original Application is, hence, vexatious. Settlement dues were paid as per the rules and Koteswaramma claimed herself to be a post retirement spouse. The directions in O.A No. 320 of 1995 were complied with and the periods of unauthorized absence are treated as leave without pay by the competent authority at the time of retirement. As Satyanarayana had rendered qualifying service only for 9 years 8 months and 5 days, he was not eligible for pension/family pension.

19. The Tribunal in its order, dated 01-04-2004 noted that the letter dated 20-05-1996 did not mention the specific period of unauthorized absence and the respondents did not mention whether the deceased was given any opportunity to explain the unauthorized absence. The Tribunal also found that the respondents did not specify the action taken in this regard and hence, concluded that the period of 406 days also shall be counted for total qualifying service for grant of pension and pensionary benefits.

20. The Railway Administration challenged the said order contending that Satyanarayana himself accepted terminal gratuity and exclusion of 406 days in arriving at his net qualifying service when he did not file any appeal till his death on 11-01-1991 against the rejection of his representation, dated 11-11-1988 for pension, vide letter dated 20-12-1988. Koteswaramma in her representation did not give the details of Devasthanam, in which she allegedly married Satyanarayana after his retirement and she is estopped from disputing the treatment of period of unauthorized absence of 406 days as leave without pay, when Satyanarayana himself never disputed the same. The unauthorized absence was specified in the letter dated 20-05-1996 and the Original Application is barred by res judicata due to dismissal of O.A.S.R No. 2981 of 2000 and M.A No. 751 of 2000. Hence, the writ petitioner desired the impugned order to be quashed.

21. The impugned order was the subject of the order of interim suspension in W.P.M.P No. 26364 of 2004, dated 03-11-2004.

W.P No. 20896 of 2004:

22. K. Ravi was appointed as Gangman on 10-05-1980 and worked till his death on 06-05-1986 on being run over by Golconda express at the work spot while on duty. He was a regular railway servant and he was treated in railway hospitals for heart disease. He was granted monthly scale of pay with effect from 10-05-1980 and his wife K. Malleshwari was offered appointment as temporary casual labour. She claimed for payment of settlement dues to her and her son and no action was taken. In O.A No. 668 of 2003, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench directed to dispose of her representation, dated 01-08-2002 within three months, but the claim for pensionary benefits was rejected by a letter, dated 23-10-2003. Ravi was not a casual labour, who attained temporary status, but was a regular Gangman in regular pay scale from 1980 to 1986. Hence, Malleshwari filed O.A No. 1638 of 2003 claiming sanction of pensionary benefits.

23. The Railway Administration resisted the claim contending that the application is barred by limitation by 7 years. Ravi was engaged as casual labour and later he was granted authorized pay scale with effect from 10-05-1980. He worked as AP Scale Mazdoor Man from 10-05-1982 to 06-05-1986 and he was, thus, a casual labour. He was not entitled to pension and pensionary benefits, unless he was screened and absorbed in Group-D post on regular basis. He was not a railway servant under the rules and Malleshwari was advised accordingly by a letter, dated 23-10-2003. The rejection of request for pensionary benefits was legal.

24. The Tribunal in the impugned order, dated 07-07-2004 noted that Ravi was working only as casual labour and his services were not regularized in any Group-D post. The Tribunal also noted that casual labour, who attained temporary status, will not be eligible for pension till their absorption in regular employment on selection through regular selection process. The Tribunal further observed that though Ravi was enjoying facilities extending to casual labour with temporary status under the provisions of the rules, the family pension scheme is applicable in respect of only railway servants who had been medically examined and found fit for appointment under the Government. The Tribunal noted that Ravi was medically examined on 16-10-1979 and was found fit for B-1 category of appointment and hence, the widow Malleshwari is entitled to receive family pension. The Tribunal distinguished the decision in Union of India v. Rabia Bikaner (2 supra), as Ravi died after acquiring temporary status and became eligible for regularization and absorption, due to which Malleshwari became eligible for family pension under amended Rule 75 of the Family Pension Scheme. The Tribunal distinguished the other decisions cited before it on facts and rejected the objection about limitation, as the order of rejection of family pension communicated on 23-10-2003 was within one year to the filing of the Original Application. As such, the Tribunal directed settlement of family pension to Malleshwari from the date of death of her husband.

25. The writ petition is filed challenging the said order contending that the deceased Ravi was not a railway servant as per the rules and was only an APS Mazdoor Man till his death. He was not screened and absorbed in Group-D post on regular basis. In fact, Malleshwari was engaged as casual labour on compassionate grounds and was subsequently regularized as Safaiwala in the medical department, though her husband was only a casual labour. After finding the deceased to be a casual labour with temporary status, the Tribunal erred in applying the Family Pension Scheme to Malleshwari merely because of the medical examination, which is different from screening. Hence, the order is liable to be set aside.

26. By virtue of the interim orders dated 23-09-2005 and 18-11-2005 of this Court, the department was directed to deposit the amount accrued as per the orders of the Tribunal, in a nationalized bank and credit the interest accrued thereon to the savings bank account of Malleshwari.

W.P No. 6919 of 2005:

27. N. Parasuramudu was appointed as Gangman on 10-12-1983 and after reaching the stage of Senior Gangman in the scale of Rs. 2650 - 4000, he was discharged from service on 16-03-1998 as medically unfit. His regular service was 14 years 3 months and 6 days as per his service certificate, dated 22-03-1999 and he was issued medical identity card, dated 03-11-1988 including his wife, daughter and son as dependents for enjoying medical facilities apart from being extended Retired Employees Liberalized Health Scheme on 16-03-1998. His medical invalidation was due to his being attacked with paralysis and he made several representations for sanction of family pension and pensionary benefits, which were wrongly rejected. Parasuramudu died on 03-11-2001 leaving his wife Shantha Kumari and she was intimated that she was not eligible for pensionary benefits contrary to the rules. Hence, she filed O.A No. 691 of 2003 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench for a direction for sanction of family pension, setting aside the rejection letter, dated 26-02-2003.

28. The Railway Administration opposed the petition contending that Parasuramudu was granted temporary status with effect from 10-12-1983 and was continuing as APS Mazdoor Man up to 30-07-1992. He was absorbed as Gangman with effect from 31-07-1992 and continued as such up to 16-03-1998 till he was declared medically unfit and discharged from service. As per the Liberalized Health Scheme, 1998, one month basic pay is to be recovered from the gratuity of the retired employee who put in a minimum of 20 years qualifying service for availing medical facilities, provided he opts for the same and such recovery was made from Parasuramudu due to inadvertent error, though he had not put in the requisite minimum qualifying service for availing medical facilities. The amount recovered was, hence, arranged to the applicant vide Pay Order No. 101435, dated 26-08-2003 for Rs. 3,040/-. The total qualifying service of Parasuramudu including 50% of the temporary status service was 9½ years for purposes of pension and pensionary benefits and as casual labour with temporary status, he is not a temporary railway servant. The claim of Shantha Kumari for family pension is impermissible as per the rules and as per the decisions of the Apex Court. Parasuramudu was paid all retiral benefits on his being discharged from service and hence, the Railway Administration desired the application to be negatived.

29. The Tribunal in the orders, dated 05-03-2004 found that Parasuramudu completed only 9½ years of qualifying service and rejected the contention that the entire period of 14 years 3 months and 6 days from 10-12-1983 to 16-03-1998 has to be taken into account with reference to Paras-1501 and 2005(c) of IREM Volumes-I and II respectively as well as the earlier decisions of the Tribunal and the Apex Court. Consequently, the Tribunal also concluded that the Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993 and the Family Pension Scheme, 1964 have no application due to the death of Parasuramudu long after discharge from railway service. The Tribunal considered the decisions cited before it to be inapplicable for that reason and further observed that when Parasuramudu did not seek regularization of his service from an earlier date, no such claim can be made after his death. The Tribunal, however, directed the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment, if she were to approach the authorities by submitting an application in this regard subject to eligibility, while rejecting the request for sanction of family pension.

30. The said order is challenged in this writ petition contending that Parasuramudu and after his death, Shantha Kumari were making number of representations in this regard, on which no action was taken and the refusal of family pension is violative of the rules and fundamental rights. The writ petitioner referred to number of precedents on this aspect and later applied for an amendment seeking to add a declaration that Para-2005(d) of Indian Railway Establishment Manual Volume-II is ultra vires and unconstitutional. But that petition in W.P.M.P No. 24379 of 2005 was dismissed as withdrawn.

31. The Railway Administration in the counter-affidavit in the writ petition further said that the son of the writ petitioner and Parasuramudu-N. Subrahmanyam was provided compassionate appointment as Gangman vide Order, dated 23-04-1999.

W.P No. 8640 of 2005:

32. V. Raja Rao was engaged as a casual labour on 15-12-1964 and attained temporary status/substitute on 10-09-1967 and regularly worked up to 31-03-1979 with more than 14 years continuous service entitling him for all the privileges like provident fund, gratuity and family pension, etc. He applied for payment of provident fund by a letter, dated 26-06-1987 and also applied for appointment in an alternative post due to his medical invalidation, but he was not absorbed in any alternative post. He died on 15-11-1987 and his widow V. Seeta represented on 18-09-2000 for sanction of family pension, for which there was no reply. They have three sons and one daughter, depending upon the widow V. Seeta for survival and in O.A No. 1693 of 2000, the Tribunal directed disposal of her representation. Accordingly, the Divisional Railway Manager, South Central Railway, Vijayawada rejected the claim by a letter, dated 26-04-2001, against which V. Seeta made representations, dated 18-06-2001, 28-08-2001 and 31-03-2002, for which there was no response. There is no bar of limitation for claiming pensionary benefits and a temporary/substitute railway servant completing one year of continuous service entitles his widow and children to family pension. Therefore, V. Seeta filed O.A No. 83 of 2003 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench.

33. The Railway Administration resisted the claim contending that V. Raja Rao initially engaged as casual labour on 15-12-1964, was granted authorized pay scale with effect from 10-09-1967 after six months of continuous service. He was found medically unfit, vide the medical certificate, dated 31-03-1979 and was discharged from service. He was only AP Scale casual labour by the time of discharge and was not absorbed in any Group-D post on regular basis, disentitling him for any pensionary benefits. The representations of the widow were duly considered and rejected, as the admissibility of pensionary benefits is only to a temporary railway servant and not to a casual labour with temporary status.

34. The Tribunal by the impugned order, dated 13-06-2003 found that Raja Rao was not shown to have worked as a permanent or temporary railway servant or a substitute at any time prior to the date of his discharge and hence, he was not entitled to any pensionary benefits and Seeta was not entitled to claim any family pension. The Tribunal noted that the definition of ‘railway servant’ under the Pension Rules does not include ‘casual labour’ even with temporary status. The Tribunal also noted that the decision in Ram Kumar v. Union of India (1996) 1 SLJ (SC) 116 was on the basis of the Railway Board's order at the relevant time in respect of the employees working as temporary employees. The Tribunal while distinguishing the other precedents cited before it, noted that in Union of India v. Rabia Bikaner (2 supra), it was held that no retiral benefit was available to the widow of a casual labour who was not regularized till his death. The Tribunal also observed that when Raja Rao himself never represented for any regular appointment, his widow cannot seek such relief after 16 years and hence, dismissed the original application.

35. The present writ petition is filed challenging the same and contending that Raja Rao was made medically fit in A3 class at the time of appointment on 10-06-1967 and was working under contributory provident fund pension scheme under an account. He was drawing regular increments and opted for revised scales. He was, thus, a regular railway servant enjoying all the benefits and denial of family pension to her, was illegal. The writ petitioner applied for an amendment seeking to add a declaration that Para-2005(d) of Indian Railway Establishment Manual Volume-II is ultra vires and unconstitutional. But that petition in W.P.M.P No. 24378 of 2005 was dismissed as withdrawn.

W.P No. 15580 of 2005:

36. V. Pothuraju was initially engaged as a casual labour on 15-11-1961 and he attained temporary status AP Scale with effect from 10-10-1963. He worked continuously up to 03-11-1977 and died on 04-11-1977 during the course of employment. As he worked for 14 years continuously in regular pay scale in Group-D service, his widow Kannamma and children are eligible for family pension under the Pension Rules. Representations, dated 27-10-1986, 05-05-1991, 08-10-1993, 24-01-1994 and 12-07-1994 for sanction of family pension, were in vain and in O.A No. 1694 of 2000, the Tribunal directed early disposal of the representation of Kannamma. Then, after two more representations, the Divisional Railway Manager, South Central Railway, Vijayawada rejected the claim. The pensionary benefits are uneffected by any bar of limitation and hence, Kannamma filed O.A No. 84 of 2003 for sanction of family pension from the date of death of Pothuraju.

37. The Railway Administration resisted the claim contending that Pothuraju, who was initially engaged as a casual labour on 10-10-1960 and granted authorized pay scale with effect from 10-10-1963, worked as AP Scale casual labour till his death and was not absorbed in Group-D service on regular basis. Hence, he or his widow are not entitled to any pensionary benefits or family pension. Kannamma was intimated accordingly and Pothuraju was not a permanent or temporary railway servant within the meaning of the Pension Rules.

38. The Tribunal in its order, dated 09-06-2003 found that Pothuraju was only conferred temporary status as a casual labour and was not a permanent or temporary railway servant as per rules. The Tribunal also observed that there was nothing to show that Pothuraju was subjected to any selection process for any Group-D post or that he was ever posted as a substitute in any permanent or temporary vacancy. The Pension Rules were held to be applicable only to a temporary railway servant, but not to a casual labour with temporary status. With reference to the precedents cited before it, the Tribunal found Kannamma to be not entitled to the relief, more so, when the deceased himself never sought for his regularization during his life.

39. Kannamma filed the writ petition against the said order contending that as per the decisions on the subject, Pothuraju, who rendered regular railway service enjoying all the benefits, was entitled to pensionary benefits and family pension.

W.P No. 6090 of 2006:

40. T. Raja Reddy joined as a casual Khalasi on 22-02-1966 and worked continuously without break up to 02-03-1973. The list of substitute/casual labour empanelled on 08-09-1972 for absorption against class IV post as a result of screening and approval, contained his name. He was directed for medical examination by a letter, dated 05-01-1973 and he was appointed as Khalasi after approval and after he was found medically fit by the letter, dated 05-03-1973. Still the Chief Personnel Officer, Secunderabad rejected the claim of Raja Reddy for adding 50% of casual labour service to the regular service for pensionary benefits and his representations against the same were of no avail. Raja Reddy retired from service on 30-09-2002 and being aggrieved by the exclusion of the service rendered, which was paid from out of the contingencies for purpose of pensionary benefits, he filed O.A No. 1124 of 2004 to add 50% of the casual labour service to his regular service and pay the difference in retiral and pensionary benefits.

41. The Railway Administration contested the claim contending that Raja Reddy was originally a project casual labour, later appointed against Group-D vacancy and absorbed on regular basis with effect from 05-03-1973. He was further promoted to Group-C and retired as Head Clerk on 30-09-2002. The rules did not permit the service rendered as casual labour in construction organization to be counted as qualifying service for purpose of retirement benefits. He was not paid from contingencies and he was never granted temporary status, which scheme came into effect only from 01-01-1981. Rule 31 of the Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993 has no application and hence, the Railway Administration sought for rejection of the claim.

42. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench in its order, dated 24-03-2005 observed that the relevant circulars and instructions, more particularly the instructions dated 28-11-1986 and 11-09-1986, show that the applicant was not entitled to count his service rendered as casual labour (project casual labour) as qualifying service for purpose of retirement benefits, as he was already absorbed regularly in 1973.

43. Challenging the said order, he filed the writ petition contending that if 50% of his service as casual labour were to be taken into consideration, he will be entitled to full pensionary benefits, as his qualifying service exceeds 33 years. The instructions of the Railway Board and the precedents entitle him to such computation and hence, he sought for a direction to add 50% of the casual labour service to regular service for the said purpose.

W.P No. 13949 of 2006:

44. Ch. Koteswara Rao was appointed as a casual labour on 05-11-1972 and attained temporary status as APS Mazdoor Man with effect from 13-04-1978. He was made fit in B1 medical examination, vide the certificate dated 30-08-1978 and was in regular service up to 09-01-1979. He died on 10-01-1979 and as per the then rules in force, when a person who is medically examined and absorbed in regular pay scales and died, his family is eligible for family pension. His wife Jyothi applied for family pension, but there was no reply. She, therefore, filed O.A No. 611 of 2005 for sanction of family pension.

45. The Railway Administration contested the claim firstly stating that the records pertaining to the case are not available at this distance of time and the original application was not within limitation. The husband of the applicant was only a casual labour with temporary status, not absorbed in Group-D service after screening and hence, he was not eligible for any pension or pensionary benefits or family pension.

46. The Tribunal in its order dated 27-04-2006, firstly noted that the representation of Jyothi, dated 29-03-2004 was rejected by a letter, dated 15-06-2004, which was not challenged herein. The Tribunal also observed that the deceased, who was a casual labour, cannot be treated as a railway servant and hence, dismissed the application.

47. It was also observed that the deceased left the service as casual labour and later expired, due to which he does not come within the purview of any rule on the subject.

48. The writ petition was filed challenging the said order contending that Jyothi was appointed on compassionate grounds as Summer Water Woman and is working in Group-D service. She made repeated representations and personal approaches since the death of her husband on 10-01-1979 and she is entitled to family pension under the rules. On the death of Jyothi on 05-07-2006, her son Nageshwar Rao was brought on record as her legal representative/the 2 petitioner.

W.P No. 24741 of 2007:

49. S. Marianna joined as a casual labour on 10-03-1979 and after continuous service, he attained temporary status on 01-12-1979. His name was at 41 in the panel list out of 144 employees absorbed in regular Group-D service with pay scales and he was sent for medical examination and was made fit in B1 class as per the letter, dated 13-05-1980. He worked up to 13-02-1991 as Mazdoor Man in regular scale and died while in service during the course of his employment on 14-02-1991. He rendered a total service of 11 years 9 months and 3 days. His widow Mary approached the authorities and made several representations for family pension, but as no action was taken, she filed O.A No. 762 of 2006 for sanction of family pension in the light of the death of her husband.

50. The Railway Administration resisted the claim contending that Mary was informed by an order, dated 29-12-2005 that she was not entitled to any family pension, as her husband was not regularized till his death. Marianna worked in construction unit as Casual Mazdoor Man and was granted temporary status, but was never absorbed against any regular or permanent post. As such, under the Railway (Pension) Rules, 1993, he is not entitled to any family pension.

51. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench by its order, dated 17-04-2007 allowed the original application following its earlier decision in the case of K. Malleswari v. General Manager, S.C Railway, Secunderabad (subject of W.P No. 20896 of 2004). The Tribunal also referred to the decision in Eluri Marthamma v. Divisional Railway Manager 2000 (3) ATJ 238, wherein a Division Bench of this Court held that the wife of the casual labour who acquired temporary status before his death, is entitled to family pension.

52. The Railway Administration challenged the said order in the writ petition contending that the deceased husband of Mary was never screened for regular absorption and was a casual labour with temporary status by the time of his death. He was not a railway servant under the rules and he was not absorbed in Group-D post on regular basis. Screening and medical examination are distinct and different and even persons engaged as casual labour should also undergo medical examination. The Tribunal itself held in O.A No. 84 of 2003 to the contrary and hence, the reversal of the impugned order was sought for.

53. The impugned order was the subject of interim suspension in W.P.M.P No. 32222 of 2007 as per the order, dated 26-11-2007 subject to deposit of arrears of family pension from 1991 up to the date of the impugned order, in a fixed deposit, while entitling the 1 respondent/claimant to withdraw the interest accrued thereon every month without furnishing any security.

54. The learned counsel for the parties are heard at length with reference to the rules, circular instructions, etc., on the subject and the precedents and their applicability to the facts in issue in each of the cases and the same will be contextually referred to in due course.

55. The main point that arises for consideration in these writ petitions is the tenability or otherwise of the request of the persons in question to pension/family pension.

56. The question of entitlement of casual labour with temporary status to pension/family pension was the subject of consideration in the latest decision of the Apex Court in General Manager, North West Railway v. Chanda Devi (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 399. The Apex Court was considering the interpretation of some of the provisions of Indian Railway Establishment Manual and referred to Inder Pal Yadav v. Union of India (1985) 2 SCC 648, which is the case where the Apex Court made the Railway Ministry work out a scientific scheme in respect of project casual labour still ruled by the rule of hire and fire. The scheme framed by the Railway Ministry as per Circular, dated 01-06-1984 was intended to treat project casual labour as temporary on completion of 360 days of continuous employment. The Apex Court modified the date of application of the scheme to 01-01-1981 and put its stamp of approval on the scheme otherwise, as a preliminary step towards realization of the ideal enshrined in Articles 41 and 42 of the Constitution.

57. The Apex Court in Chanda Devi (7 supra) further referred to the controversy in the case before it with reference to Union of India v. Rabia Bikaner (2 supra), Ram Kumar v. Union of India (1988) 1 SCC 306 = 1988 SCC (L&S) 329 and Ram Kumar v. Union of India (5 supra). The Apex Court also noted that the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 have no application to the case before it and that the statutory rules for grant of pension made in view of the Proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, cannot be said to have any application in the case before it concerning the claim for family pension by the widow of a casual labour with temporary status. The Apex Court also observed that indisputably, the railway servants, if appointed on a regular basis, would enjoy a status having regard to the provisions contained in Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court then referred to Rules 2001, 2002 and 2005 in Chapter XX of the Indian Railway Service Establishment Code governing the railway servants and defining casual labour, their admissible entitlements and privileges and the entitlements and privileges admissible to casual labour who are treated as temporary (i.e given temporary status) after completion of 120 days or 360 days of continuous employment (as the case may be). Rule 2005 clearly stipulated that casual labour including project casual labour shall be eligible to count only half the period of service rendered by them after attaining temporary status on completion of prescribed days of continuous employment and before regular absorption, as qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefits and the benefit will be admissible only after their absorption in regular employment. The rule also makes it clear that such casual labour, who acquire temporary status, will not, however, be brought on to the permanent or regular establishment or treated as in regular employment in railways until and unless they are selected through regular Selection Board for Group-D posts in the manner laid down from time to time.

58. The Apex Court also noted that Ram Kumar v. Union of India (9 supra) was rendered with reference to not the existing Rule 2005, but the earlier rule in its place, while a clarification was subsequently made in Ram Kumar v. Union of India (5 supra) clarifying that the earlier view that temporary employees were not entitled to pension on superannuation, was based on the material then placed before the Apex Court and the subsequent decision of the Railway Board providing for pension at the time of superannuation even to those who are temporary employees, has to be given effect to.

59. The Apex Court then noted that Ram Kumar v. Union of India (5 supra) was followed in Union of India v. Rabia Bikaner (2 supra), wherein it was held, with reference to Para-2511 of Railway Establishment Manual, that casual labour entitled to temporary status, empanelled, screened by the competent authority and appointed in the order of merit in the vacancies of temporary posts in the regular establishment after putting in minimum service of one year in the temporary posts, will make their widows eligible for pension under the Family Pension Scheme, 1964, if they die while in service. If the casual labour were not eligible for screening before their death due to unavailability of posts or if they were not given appointments even after screening for the same reason, their widows will not be eligible for family pension benefits.

60. The Apex Court further noted the contrast between a casual labour having a temporary status and a temporary railway servant from the definition of ‘temporary railway servant’ in Rule 1501 of Chapter XV of the Manual. The definition specifically excluded ‘casual labour’ including ‘casual labour with temporary status’. The Apex Court proceeded further to consider Rukhiben Rupabhai v. Union of India 2006 (2) ATJ page-1. A Division Bench of Gujarat High Court noted the change effected by the railways in the original scheme approved by the Apex Court in Inder Pal Yadav v. Union of India (8 supra) by appending ‘temporary status’ instead of ‘temporary’ to casual labour. That change was considered to be ex facie contrary to the Apex Court's decision and therefore, illegal and non est. The Division Bench also noted that after the two decisions of the Apex Court, the definition of ‘temporary railway servants’ was also changed and with reference to Union of India v. Rabia Bikaner (2 supra), Ram Kumar v. Union of India (5 supra), etc., the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court held that a casual labour serving for the requisite period continuously, has to be treated as a temporary railway servant entitling him to pension and other consequential benefits on superannuation. Regularization against a permanent post on availability or creation, was considered irrelevant and consequently, such casual labour and substitutes were held entitled to family pension under such circumstances.

61. The Apex Court considered in Chanda Devi (7 supra) that the provisions of the Railway Manual were not considered by Gujarat High Court in Rukhiben Rupabhai v. Union of India (10 supra) and explained that what was considered by the Apex Court in the decisions was that the Railway Manual should be given effect to, as it governs the terms and conditions of service of the employees working under the Railway Administration and the Court nowhere suggested that the amendments made in the Railway Manual would be of no effect. The Apex Court also noted that in the absence of any statutory rules framed, executive instructions can be issued in relation to the matter governed by the constitutional provisions and the Railway Manual was held to be an amalgam of various circulars issued from time to time, which executive instructions or rules framed would be statutory in nature. The Apex Court opined that when the validity of rules was not under challenge, the Gujarat High Court committed an error in Rukhiben Rupabhai v. Union of India (10 supra) and when casual labour were excluded from the definition of permanent or temporary employee, such casual labour with temporary status could not have become a permanent or temporary employee with any legal sanction. Consequently, the Apex Court concluded that what was protected by conferring temporary status upon a casual employee was his service and by reason thereof the Pension Rules were not made applicable and a workman had not been and could not have been given a status to which he was not entitled to.

62. Therefore, Chanda Devi (7 supra), which holds the field as of now, upheld the validity of the distinction between ‘casual labour with temporary status’ and ‘temporary railway servant’.

63. It was contended by Sri. G. Sanyasi Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P No. 13949 of 2006, etc., that Chanda Devi (7 supra) being a decision by two Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court, cannot run contra to the earlier decisions of the Apex Court through Benches of larger strength and referred to General Manager, Telecom v. A. Srinivasa Rao 1998 SCC (L&S) 6, wherein it was held that the Supreme Court also is bound by itself and a Bench of lesser strength cannot take a view contrary to that taken by a larger Bench. Judicial discipline requires that the earlier decision of a larger Bench should be followed in preference to subsequent decisions of smaller Benches.

64. There is absolutely no doubt about the principle of judicial propriety laid down, but the two Judge Bench deciding Chanda Devi (7 supra) had specifically referred to Inder Pal Yadav v. Union of India (8 supra), Union of India v. Rabia Bikaner (2 supra), Ram Kumar v. Union of India (5 supra) and other decisions of the Apex Court and interpreted their legal effect in a particular manner, while overruling Rukhiben Rupabhai v. Union of India (10 supra) of Gujarat High Court. It will be equally offending judicial discipline and judicial propriety to venture to construe that the understanding of the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court by the two Judge Bench in Chanda Devi (7 supra) was not correct or proper. There would have been some scope for such a contention, if the earlier decisions of the Apex Court were not referred to in Chanda Devi (7 supra) and as long as Chanda Devi (7 supra) holds the field, this Court is bound by the view expressed therein.

65. In General Manager, South Central Railway v. Shaik Abdul Khader 2004 (1) SLR 214 (AP), the individual was granted a temporary status and was later absorbed in Group-D post and the Division Bench referred to Rule 31 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, Master Circular 54 of 1994 and Para-2005 of Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Volume-ll and opined that on absorption, the whole of the period for which a casual labour worked after getting temporary status, would have to be counted and half of the period has to be counted of the period for which a casual labour worked without being absorbed. The Division Bench felt that once he is given temporary status, that means that he has been absorbed in the department and once temporary status is granted to a person, who is later absorbed in regular service, he carries forward the service in full, while half of the service rendered by him as casual labour before getting the temporary status has to be counted.

66. The material papers filed on behalf of the petitioners show that the South Central Railway carried the matter to the Supreme Court in S.L.P (Civil) No. 24465 of 2003 and the special leave petition was dismissed as not pressed.

67. In Eluri Marthamma v. Divisional Railway Manager, South Central Railway (6 supra), following Prabhavati v. Union of India (1996) 7 SCC 27 , ALR 1996 SC 752 = (1996) 32 ATC 515 where the widow of a substitute initially taken as a casual worker, was held entitled for family pension, the widow of a casual worker was held entitled to family pension. The Division Bench also directed consideration of the widow or the son, as may be chosen in between them, for compassionate appointment not raising any technical plea of limitation.

68. In Prabhavati Devi v. Union of India (13 supra), the person originally taken as a casual labour acquired the status of a substitute and Rule 2315 on the terms and conditions applicable to substitutes in temporary services read with Rule 2318, confers certain rights and privileges admissible to temporary railway servants on completion of six months continuous service and the deceased in the case before the Apex Court having so worked beyond six months as substitute continuously, became entitled to family pension on par with a temporary railway servant as per Rule 2311. It was due to such a situation on facts and as per rules that the widow was given the benefit of family pension and the reference by their Lordships to ‘acquisition of temporary status’ derived in the manner stated was with reference to such position but not with reference to the casual labour with temporary status.

69. However, in Eluri Marthamma v. Divisional Railway Manager (6 supra), the decision was made applicable in the case of a casual labour and apart from the decision being on facts without laying down any principle as such, the reference to Prabhavati v. Union of India (13 supra) as being followed, will not detract from the fact that Prabhavati v. Union of India (13 supra) was rendered in respect of a substitute who is not identical under the rules with casual labour with temporary status.

70. Similarly, Shaik Abdul Khader (12 supra) directing counting of the entire service rendered by a casual labour after getting temporary status even before absorption for purposes of qualifying service for pension/family pension, runs contrary to the distinction between ‘casual labour with temporary status’ and ‘temporary railway servants’ recognized by Chanda Devi (7 supra) and other decisions of the Supreme Court. The conclusion in Shaik Abdul Khader (12 supra) that once a casual labour is given temporary status, that means that he has been absorbed in the department, does not appear to fit in with the interpretation of the rules and the legal position by the Apex Court.

71. The decision in S.K Mastan Bee v. The General Manager, South Central Railway JT 2002 (10) SC 50 was a case where a gangman died while in service and his illiterate widow applied for family pension belatedly. The consideration up to the Apex Court was with reference to the justification for the delay due to ignorance and lack of legal assistance and the nature of the employment of the deceased either as a permanent or temporary railway servant or as a substitute or as a casual labour with or without temporary status, was not referred to at all and hence, the decision has no effect on the questions in issue herein.

72. While the direction in Ram Kumar v. Union of India (5 supra) concerning entitlement to pension was due to the subsequent different decision of the Railway Board providing eligibility for pension even to temporary employees, not referring to the distinction between ‘temporary railway servants’ and ‘casual labour with temporary status’, Phoolwati v. Union of India (1991) 17 ATC 937 with reference to providing compassionate appointment on the death of the bread earner of the family, has no bearing on the controversy herein.

73. Similarly, U.P State Electricity v. Pooran Chandra Pandey Civil Appeal No. 3765 of 2001 of the Supreme Court of India decided on 09-10-2007 from the Apex Court holding that reasonableness and non-arbitrariness is part of Article 14 of the Constitution, also has no direct application to the conflicting claims herein.

74. Similarly, the decision in Sharmila Devi v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited 2003 (1) ATJ 313 with reference to the denial of grant of family pension on the ground of the deceased employee not completing one year qualifying service, was based on an earlier Division Bench decision of the same Court interpreting the relevant rule to be entitling the dependents to the family pension, if the deceased was medically examined and found fit and medical fitness certificate was produced before entry into Government service from a competent medical officer even if the deceased did not complete one year of continuous service. The interpretation of the railway rules can only be with reference to the language of those rules and not the rules of some other institution and the Family Pension Scheme herein is extended to families of railway servants even before completion of one year continuous service, if the deceased was examined by appropriate medical authority and declared fit by that authority to railway service prior to such appointment.

75. The strenuous attempts made to read a conflict between Chanda Devi (7 supra) and the earlier decisions of the Apex Court cannot be appreciated due to the Apex Court specifically referring to the said earlier decisions in Chanda Devi (7 supra) and making it clear that Inder Pal Yadav (8 supra) cannot be considered as making the subsequent amendments made in the Railway Manual to be of no effect. It was also made clear with reference to the different rules that Ram Kumar v. Union of India (5 supra) was due to the replacement of the earlier rule by a new rule and with reference to Ram Kumar v. Union of India (9 supra) and Rabia Bikaner (2 supra), Chanda Devi (7 supra) clearly held the contrast to be existing between a casual labour having a temporary status and a temporary railway servant. It specifically overruled Rukhiben Rupabhai v. Union of India (10 supra), which was rendered with reference to all the above cited earlier decisions of the Apex Court and as already stated, the conclusion of the Apex Court that by reason of conferring temporary status upon a casual employee, pension rules were not made applicable, cannot be deviated from by this Court.

76. The distinction between casual labour in open line and on project works was also sought to be pressed into service to contend Chanda Devi (7 supra) to be inapplicable. But any distinction between the two types of casual labour does not appear to exist, at least, in so far as the distinction between casual labour granted temporary status and temporary railway servants with reference to pension/family pension or the counting of the service rendered as casual labour for such purpose.

77. What remains, therefore, is the legal effect of Chanda Devi (7 supra) on the questions in issue in different writ petitions.

W.P No. 10838 of 2001:

78. The decision of the Tribunal was based on O.A No. 82 of 1990 in respect of project casual labour which was claimed to have been reversed by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.G Radhakrishna Phanikar (1 supra) in tune with Rabia Bikaner (2 supra) and the same being not factually in dispute, the basis on which the Tribunal rendered its decision appears to have been removed. As the service rendered as casual labour before conferring temporary status cannot be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits, the Railway Administration cannot be found fault with as done by the Tribunal and the writ petition has to be allowed.

W.P No. 15356 of 2001:

79. Adam expired while working as casual labour with temporary status without attending the screening test and his service as casual labour with temporary status was not for the requisite period. The abandonment of service by Adam from 07-02-1982 till his death also could not have been ignored and for the same reasons for which the earlier writ petition should be allowed, this writ petition also should succeed.

W.P No. 8793 of 2002:

80. The Tribunal found the deceased Sathaiah Balaiah to be neither a permanent or temporary railway servant nor a substitute as per rules and the Tribunal followed Rabia Bikaner (2 supra) in which the widow of casual labour in railway establishment who died after acquiring temporary status, but had not been regularized till death, was held not entitled to family pension. The Tribunal's order has to be, therefore, upheld and the writ petition has to fail.

W.P No. 20126 of 2004:

81. The unauthorized absence of 406 days was claimed to have been computed while paying the terminal gratuity to Satyanarayana, which he never challenged. It was also stated that the rejection of his representation for pension was also not challenged by him and whether the post retirement wife could challenge the exclusion of the said period of unauthorized absence is highly doubtful. The period of unauthorized absence can be presumed to be a matter of record in the absence of any evidence to the contrary and how the Tribunal presumed the absence of any opportunity to the deceased to explain the unauthorized absence, is unknown. The dismissal of O.A.S.R No. 2981 of 2000 and M.A No. 751 of 2000 also operates against the widow on the principles of res judicata or constructive res judicata and if the period of unauthorized absence were to be excluded from computing the total qualifying service for purpose of pension/family pension, the writ petition has to succeed and the order of the Tribunal has to be reversed.

W.P No. 20896 of 2004:

82. Ravi was working only as casual labour with temporary status not absorbed in any regular employment on selection through regular selection process. Though he was medically examined and found fit for appointment, he was not screened and absorbed in Group-D post on regular basis and his widow cannot be considered entitled to family pension. The writ petition has to, therefore, succeed reversing the order of the Tribunal.

W.P No. 6919 of 2005:

83. The amount wrongly recovered from the deceased Parasuramudu under the Liberalised Health Scheme was stated to have been repaid during his life. The Tribunal upheld the contention that Parasuramudu completed only 9½ years of qualifying service making his widow ineligible for any family pension and there is no reason for deviating from the same. While the son of the writ petitioner and Parasuramudu was provided compassionate appointment, the writ has to otherwise fail, more so, when the attempted challenge to Para-2005(d) of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Volume-ll, was later withdrawn.

W.P No. 8640 of 2005:

84. The decision of the Tribunal was in compliance with the decisions of the Apex Court and the contention that the deceased Raja Rao was a regular railway servant is not borne out by any record. Like in the earlier writ petition, the attempted challenge to Para-2005(d) of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Volume-ll, was withdrawn and on facts, the acceptance by the Tribunal of the contention that casual labour with temporary status do not come within the definition of ‘railway servants’, cannot be negatived and the writ petition has to, therefore, fail.

W.P No. 15580 of 2005:

85. This also is a case where the Tribunal did not find Pothuraju to have been subjected to any selection process or to have ever worked as substitute and consequently was unable to apply the pension rules to a casual labour with temporary status. The contention that he rendered regular railway service enjoying all benefits, is not borne out by the record and the writ petition has to fail.

W.P No. 6090 of 2006:

86. Raja Reddy was held by the Tribunal to be not entitled to count his service rendered as casual labour and what he desires is counting his service as casual labour even before conferment of temporary status on him, which is impermissible under the rules. The Administration explained that the very concept of grant of temporary status came into effect only from 01-01-1981, while his absorption was much earlier from 05-03-1973 and consequently, the earlier service as casual labour is not controlled by the subsequent rules. Therefore, the contention that 50% of his service as casual labour has to be counted for pensionary benefits, cannot be acceded to and the writ petition has to fail.

W.P No. 13949 of 2006:

87. The Tribunal found that the deceased firstly was a casual labour and secondly left service as casual labour before his death and hence, does not come within the purview of any rule on the subject. The factual conclusion remains unchallenged by any material on record and consequently, the impugned order of the Tribunal needs no interference and the writ petition has to fail.

W.P No. 24741 of 2007:

88. The order of the Tribunal was with reference to Eluri Marthamma v. Divisional Railway Manager (6 supra), which does not fit in with Chanda Devi (7 supra) and its own earlier decision, which is the subject of W.P No. 20896 of 2004 in this batch. It is not claimed that Marianna was screened for regular absorption and not a mere casual labour with temporary status and if so, the decision of the Tribunal contrary to its own decision in O.A No. 84 of 2003 cannot be upheld and the writ petition has to succeed.

89. Incidentally, it may also be noted that most of the claims made for pension/family pension/compassionate appointment were abnormally belated, years beyond the period of limitation prescribed by the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for approaching the Tribunal for any relief from the date of the cause of action. Such belated claims could have been thrown out on that technical ground alone, but all the claims are still considered on merits in the interests of substantial justice, unfettered by any technicalities.

90. The inaction of the railways in holding regular selection for Group-D posts for long periods might have certainly operated to the prejudice of the casual labour entitled for absorption, but by no means, either due to the precedents referred to or under the rules, any notional conferment of regular status can be made in respect of such deprived employees from any anterior period of time.

91. In W.P No. 20896 of 2004 and W.P No. 24741 of 2007, interest on the amounts deposited by the railways by virtue of the interim orders of this Court, was permitted to be appropriated by the beneficiaries pending the writ petitions and though the exact amounts received by them till now are not available, in view of the beneficiaries being obviously economically very weak, any amounts so received need not be recovered from them and hence, while the railways can withdraw the deposits on this common judgment becoming final, they shall not recover any amounts paid to the beneficiaries by virtue of the interim orders of this Court during the pendency of the writ petitions.

92. A reference has also to be made to Rule 107 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, under which the power to relax operation of any of the rules, was conferred on the Pension Sanctioning Authority, of course, after following the procedure prescribed therein. Similarly, in respect of compassionate appointments also, administrative discretion to be justly, reasonably and equitably exercised, will not be lacking in the concerned authorities. Therefore, while the requests of the employees/their dependents in these writ petitions in assertion of any legal right should fail, it should be left open to them to apply to the concerned authorities for relaxation of rules in their favour either in respect of pension or family pension or other pensionary benefits or compassionate appointments, which will, undoubtedly, receive all compassionate consideration such requests deserve, more so, in view of the service rendered by the employees concerned to the railways irrespective of its nature for purposes of the service or retiral benefits.

93. In the result, W.P Nos. 10838 of 2001, 15356 of 2001, 20126 of 2004, 20896 of 2004 and 24741 of 2007 are allowed and W.P Nos. 8793 of 2002, 6919 of 2005, 8640 of 2005, 15580 of 2005, 6090 of 2006 and 13949 of 2006 are dismissed and the parties shall bear their own costs in the writ petitions. Any amounts received by the beneficiaries in W.P No. 20896 of 2004 and W.P No. 24741 of 2007 towards interest on the deposits made by railways in pursuance of the interim orders of this Court during the pendency of the writ petitions, shall not be recovered from them. The result of these writ petitions does not preclude the employees/their dependents from applying to appropriate authorities of the railways for consideration of their requests for pension/family pension/other pensionary benefits/compassionate appointments in relaxation of the rules and such representations may receive compassionate consideration from the authorities concerned as expeditiously as possible.