ORDER M.F. Saldanha, J.—The Petitioner before us is the widow of one Ajjappa Mundargi who was working as a substitute gangman with the Southern Railway. As on 28.3.1972 he had put in approximately seven years and seven months of service in this capacity. He was run over by a train at Anandpur railway station in the Sagar Division of Shimoga District. According to the petition, the deceased belonged to the backward community and was also illiterate. The Petitioner states that she had applied to the railway authorities for family pension and other benefits but no action was taken on her representations and that she finally approached the Central Administrative Tribunal for a direction to pay her the terminal benefits. The C.A.T. by its order dated 19.2.1998 rejected the claim on the ground that the deceased was only a substitute gangman, that he had not been regularly absorbed and since he was not a regular employee of the railways that he did not qualify for any of the benefits that had been asked for. The present petition assails the correctness of that order. 2. Mr. Prasad, learned Counsel who represented the Respondents has raised a preliminary objection with regard to the aspect of limitation because it is his submission that under Section 21 of the Central Administrative Tribunal's Act the cause of action ought to have arisen within a period of three years from the date of presentation of the application and it is his submission that the death having occurred during the year 1972, the application filed before the Tribunal in the year 1997 was clearly time barred. We have considered the legal position and in our considered opinion the application was maintainable, the simple reason being that the payment of a terminal benefit such as family pension is something that recurs from month to month and the non-payment is a continuous legal injury in respect of which it was perfectly permissible to maintain the application. Courts cannot lose sight of the status of the parties and this is a pathetic case where the widow of a subordinate railway employee probably living at a subsistence level with very little assistance of any type has approached a forum almost by way of a mercy petition and technical objections are hardly what one would have expected. Courts cannot lose sight of the status of the parties and this is a pathetic case where the widow of a subordinate railway employee probably living at a subsistence level with very little assistance of any type has approached a forum almost by way of a mercy petition and technical objections are hardly what one would have expected. In any event, we are duty bound to examine the objection when it is pleaded and we have already held that the bar would not apply to a case of the present type. Also, the plea of limitation is normally something that has to be raised at the threshold, but even assuming the plea was canvassed before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has decided the case on merits and consequently, we see no ground on which we can shut out the Petitioner on this ground. 3. Coming to the merits of the claim, the main submission canvassed by the Petitioner's learned Advocate is that under Rule 2318 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual it is clearly prescribed that a substitute shall be afforded all the rights and privileges as may be admissible to temporary railway servants from time to time on completion of six months continuous service. Admittedly, the deceased had put in more than six months of continuous service and would therefore have to be treated on par with a temporary railway servant. Sub-rule (3)(b) of Rule 2311 provides that the widow/minor children of a railway servant who dies while in service after putting a service of not less than one year continuous (qualifying) service shall be eligible for a family pension under the provisions of para 801 of the Manual of Railway Pension Rules. We do not need to enter into any elaborate debate on this issue because the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the legal position in the decision in Prabhavati Devi's case reported in 1996 (1) SLR 28. 4. The learned Counsel who represents the Respondents submitted that in a later decision reported in Union of India and others Vs. Rabia Bikaner etc., AIR 1997 SC 2843 where Prabhavati's case was considered, that the Supreme Court had occasion to distinguish that decision and went on to hold that the widow of a casual employee with temporary status was not entitled to family pension. Rabia Bikaner etc., AIR 1997 SC 2843 where Prabhavati's case was considered, that the Supreme Court had occasion to distinguish that decision and went on to hold that the widow of a casual employee with temporary status was not entitled to family pension. The submission is that under the relevant Rules of the Manual that if casual employees are also to be equated with temporary employees, by implication it is submitted that this decision would effectively override the earlier one. We have very carefully considered the two judgments and we find that the second of the decisions referred to supra though it makes a reference to Prabhavati's case, does not over rule it nor does it water down what the Supreme Court had earlier held because the Supreme Court was dealing with an entirely different situation of a casual employee. 5. The other objection that has been pleaded before us is that the Manual of Railway Pension Rules prescribes certain qualifying periods for benefits and that these Rules very clearly prescribe that the benefit would not be available to a person who was holding a temporary position and that too, if he has not put in ten years of continuous service. We find that the Pension Rules normally govern the cases of regular employees and that what has been prescribed for in the Manual is virtually an artificial situation whereby by virtue of a concession, these benefits are given to the family members of a substitute employee even though the employee has worked for a lesser period of time. Consequently, the objection that has been pleaded would not in any way assist the Respondents in resisting the claim. 6. On the facts of the present case and having regard to the legal position, the Petitioner clearly qualifies for the family pension benefits. Having regard to the long period of time that has elapsed, it would be very necessary that the Respondents take the necessary steps to compute and pay to her the amount that she would be entitled to. In the course of the arguments, one of the submissions that was canvassed was that when claims are pressed after an abnormally long time lag that it puts the department to considerable difficulty because there are limits to the capacity to trace out old documents and records etc. In the course of the arguments, one of the submissions that was canvassed was that when claims are pressed after an abnormally long time lag that it puts the department to considerable difficulty because there are limits to the capacity to trace out old documents and records etc. and we do understand that this poses a practical difficulty but that cannot come in the way of the Petitioner's entitlement because there is an equal duty cast on the railways particularly in cases of this type where a death has occurred and the department is duty bound to compute and pay to the beneficiary even if necessary after ascertaining their whereabouts, all amounts that are due to them. Sadly enough, there was a petty amount of Rs. 1,612/- that was standing to the credit of the deceased which had apparently not been paid to him even in the year 1998 when the Tribunal passed the order which was 26 years after the death of the deceased. 7. In view of the aforesaid position, we set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 19.2.1998. The petition is allowed. The Respondents are directed to compute the amount due to the Petitioner within an outer limit of sixty days from today. If there are any procedural requirements such as documents, receipts etc., the Respondents may contact the learned Advocate who represents the Petitioner who has undertaken to ensure that all these formalities will be complied with. The Respondents shall ensure that the Petitioner receives whatever her entitlements are in keeping with the relevant rules and that the time period fixed by this Court is strictly adhered to. We need to further prescribe that on the facts and circumstances of this case, we make it very clear that if the direction of the Court are not adhered to for whatever reason within the prescribed period of time then the Respondents will have to pay interest compounded at bank rate on the arrears. We need to record our righteous indignation for what had happened and the costs are quantified at Rs. 5,000/-.