UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusRABIA BIKANER ETC.

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.
    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 :
G
          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".

       It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent-widows
that under paragraph 2511 - "Rights and Privileges admissible to the casual F
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 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
       B   available after the death. Under these circumstances, the respondent-
           widows are not eligible to the family pension benefits.

                The learned counsel strongly relied upon the judgment in Prabhavati
         Devi v. Union of India, [1996] 7 SCC 27. Therein, the facts were that from
       C t 1e year 1981 to April 27, 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
       D pension Scheme. Thus, in that case, the appellant's husband was a sub-
          stitute working in a regular scale of pay in the railway establishme1Jt.
          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
       E went on leave. Under these circumstances, this Court had held that 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 & Anr., SLP (C) No. 3341/93 etc. decided on July 30, 1996
          wherein relying on the ratio in Ram Kumar's case this Court held that no
       F retiral benefit was available to the widow of the casual labour who had not
          been regularised till his death. Thus, we hold that the view taken by the
          Tribun'Ms in granting the pensionary benefits to the respondents is clearly
          illegal.

       G         The appeals arc accordingly allowed and the 0.As. 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.

            R.P.                                                     Appeals allowed.