ORDER Meena Devi filed a claim petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal (No. O.A. 394/96) seeking relief that she be entitled to family pension and appointment on compassionate ground. 2. She was unsuited before by the Tribunal as being entitled to neither. 3. The case of Prabhavati Devi Vs. Union of India & others (A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 752) was cited on the ground that a casual worker shall acquire the status of a substitute and having been appointed in 1993 to work for four years, after which he died, his widow would be entitled to a family pension. The .Central Administrative Tribunal did not meet this case. But, readily accepted the proposition made by the counsel for the Union of India when the matter of Union of India & others Vs. Rabia Bikaner (A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 2843) was put up as proposition on behalf of railway administration. The case which was cited by the railway administration In re-Union of India & others Vs. Rabia Bikaner, supra does not -aid the railway administration. In that case the Supreme Court interpreted the situation that every casual labourer employed in railway administration for six months is entitled to temporary status. Thereafter, upon being empanel led for being screened which test if the employee passes successfully, entitles him to a regular post. 4. In the matter before the Tribunal there was no issue that employee concerned was a casual gangman with temporary status. He was employed on 10.10.1982 as casual gangman to be made a temporary and given temporary status on 27.1.1983. He had been empanelled and was ready to be screened. Thereafter, he did on 5.12.1989. He worked for railway establishment for seven years, in the case before Supreme Court in re-Prabhavati Devi the employee had worked for four years. The only unfortunate part in the present case is that the deceased employee had worked for seven years, had been empanelled but could not meet screening test which if done successfully would have made him a regular employee. 5. By the decisions of the Supreme Court the widow is entitled to a pension. By the circular of the Board the widow is also entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment. 5. By the decisions of the Supreme Court the widow is entitled to a pension. By the circular of the Board the widow is also entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment. The circular of the Boar runs thus: "If a casual labour with temporary status dies in harness, i.e. during his employment with railways and if the case presents features constituting extreme hardship, meriting special consideration General Manager at his personal discretion, may give appointment to eligible and suitable ward on compassionate grounds. General Manager may also exercise powers personally to decide the request for appointment on compassionate grounds to ward of a casual labourer who dies due to an accident while on duty, provided the casual labourer concerned is eligible for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. R.B.'s. No. E (NG) 11-84/CL/28 of 4.5.84 and 31.12.86. 6. The only aspect which is noticeable in the Board's circular is that the General Manager has discretion to give appointment to eligible and suitable ward of the deceased employee on compassionate ground. Further, should a casual labourer with temporary status die while on duty there is additional discretion vested with the General Manager to decide the request for appointment on compassionate ground. The second aspect is not the circumstance in the present case. It is first aspect. A casual labourer had received temporary status. It was his bad luck that despite being empanelled he could not meet the date for screening. He died before screening was to take place. 7. This Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case where the widow of the deceased employee should be considered for compassionate appointment. 8. The matter be referred to the General Manager by the railway administration and a decision be rendered within six weeks from today. 9. The petition succeeds with costs.