Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 307 (PAT)

Union of India v. Urmila Devi

2012-02-22

ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI, SHIVA KIRTI SINGH

body2012
ORDER : SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. Heard the parties. 2. By a common order passed in several O.A.s which also covers cases of respondents in both the cases, the Tribunal has held that the applicants are entitled for family pension in view of order passed in the case of one Sushila Devi by the Tribunal itself and on the basis of some judgments and orders of Patna High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court. 3. On behalf of Union of India and its officials who are the petitioners, our attention was drawn to relevant judgments of the Supreme Court clarifying the legal position with respect to terminal benefits including family pension of Railway employees. It was pointed out that law laid down in the case of Chanda Devi reported in (2008) 2 SCC 108 still holds the fields and as per that judgment Railway Rules make distinction between casual labourer having temporary status and temporary railway servants. Pension Rules do not apply to casual employees, even if, they have been conferred with temporary status because such status protects only service of a casual employee but does not confer the benefit of family pension. It was pointed out that this is the consistent view of the Apex Court flowing from judgment in the case of Ram Kumar Vrs. Union of India, (1988) 1 SCC 306 and Union of India Vrs. Rabia Bikaner, (1997) 6 SCC 580 . It was also pointed out that Patna High Court CWJC No.18283 of 2010 (7) dt.22-02-2012 although in the case of Chanda Devi, the Apex Court did not specifically refer to earlier judgment in the case of Prabhawati Devi reported in (1996) 7 SCC 27 but that judgment was distinguished earlier in the case of Rabia Bikaner Case. Para 5 of that judgment pointed out the distinction between the casual worker even with temporary status and a substitute working in a regular scale of pay in the Railway Establishment. The case of Prabhawati Devi related to a substitute working in regular scale of pay in the Railway Establishment for beyond a particular period which entitled such worker to pensionary benefits also as per Rule 2318. 4. The case of Prabhawati Devi related to a substitute working in regular scale of pay in the Railway Establishment for beyond a particular period which entitled such worker to pensionary benefits also as per Rule 2318. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners also referred to the three Division Bench judgments annexed with the counter affidavit filed in the case of Rekha Devi (C.W.J.C. No. 13363 of 2010) and pointed out relevant service details of the concerned employees to show that those cases were not of casual workers but either of a substitute governed by different rules or an employee who was taken in regular establishment on temporary post. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents in both the writ petitions has submitted that the Tribunal has treated the respondents/applicants to be temporary employees and has therefore, granted them the benefit of family pension. He further submits that their cases are similar to that of Sushila Devi. 6. In the present case, we are not concerned with the facts of case relating to Sushila Devi as that mater is not under consideration. A close scrutiny of the impugned order of the Tribunal discloses that in paragraph-1, the Tribunal has noted the stand of the Union of India that the concerned employees had only worked as casual workers for many years. Thereafter, it has decided to follow the judgment in the case of Sushila Devi without considering the relevant facts relating to service career of the concerned employees and without coming to a definite finding whether the employees had continued to be casual workers or casual workers with temporary status or whether he had been selected and appointed to regular establishment against temporary post. 7. In the light of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chanda Devi, the applicants would be entitled for family pension only if it is found by the Tribunal that the concerned employees had died after they were appointed in regular establishment even against temporary post. On the other hand, if the finding is to the effect that the concerned employees was only a casual worker or a casual worker with temporary status, the widow would not be entitled for family pension. On the other hand, if the finding is to the effect that the concerned employees was only a casual worker or a casual worker with temporary status, the widow would not be entitled for family pension. Having clarified the law, we are of the considered view that both the matters need to be remitted back to the Tribunal for appreciation of service records of the concerned employees and for coming to a definite finding regarding their service status at the time of death. Hence, the orders impugned so far as they relate to the concerned respondents are set aside and the mater is remitted back to the Tribunal for hearing the parties afresh and deciding the matter in the light of aforesaid observations and in accordance with law. 9. The writ petitions are allowed to the aforesaid extent, no cost.