Judgment Vijay Manohar Sahai, J.—We have heard Mr. Gogia, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Juneja, Ld. Counsel for the respondents. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25/11/2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 353/2002. The grievance of the petitioner is that she has not been paid family pension on the ground that the husband of the petitioner was working as a casual labour with temporary status and that he was not regularized till his death. The Tribunal, in para. 10 of the order, has given the findings as to why regularization could not be granted to deceased husband of the petitioner. Para. 10 of the order reads as under : “10. Counsel for the parties have been heard at length. The admitted facts are that the applicant’s husband was working in the Construction Organisation as Project Casual Labour with effect from 11/9/78 and was granted temporary status with effect from 1/1/83. It is also admitted that while working as a casual labour with temporary status, he died on 21/5/1988. The applicant’s husband was not regularized till his death. As regard screening, it was held some time in 1988. The date of screening has not come on record. The applicant’s husband died on 21/5/1988, so it is not clear whether the applicant’s husband was actually screened or not. However, this fact is not denied on behalf of the respondents. So the submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant is accepted that the applicant was also screened in the year 1988. Even if that be so, no benefits would be admissible to the applicant as the panel prepared on the basis of screening held in 1988 was cancelled and the vacancy was renotified in the year 1989. It is not the case of the applicant that those who were in the panel challenged the cancellation of the panel. If the panel prepared on the basis of 1988 screening was cancelled and was not challenged so the cancellation order became final. No benefits can be given to those who were in the said panel. The screening was notified subsequently in the year 1989, whereas the applicant’s husband expired in May 1988. Thus, admittedly, at the time of screening in the year 1989, the applicant’s husband was not alive. No benefits can be given to those who were in the said panel. The screening was notified subsequently in the year 1989, whereas the applicant’s husband expired in May 1988. Thus, admittedly, at the time of screening in the year 1989, the applicant’s husband was not alive. The applicant’s husband, therefore, cannot be granted any relief on the basis of panel, which was cancelled in the year 1988. Thus, the question of deemed regularization does not arise.” 3. The argument of Mr. Gogia that screening was merely formality which may have been gone against the husband of the petitioner. The screening was cancelled and when the nest screening was re-notified in the year 1989 and during that time, the husband of the petitioner died and, therefore, no benefit accrued to the deceased husband of the petitioner. In Paras. 17 and 18 the Tribunal has given reasons as to why regularization could not be granted to the petitioner’s husband. Paras. 17 and 18 of the order of the Tribunal read as under : “17. Learned Counsel for the applicant, Shri Gogia submitted that the Tribunal has power to direct for deemed regularization in view of decision of Yashwant Hari Katakkar [Supra]. Katakkar’s case has been considered by the Full Bench in case of S. Rathnam. It is also noted that in Katakkar’s case, the employee has served for eighteen and half years of quasi permanent service. Quasi Permanent service is defined under CCS [Temporary Services] Rules. A temporary Government servant used to be earlier granted Quasi Permanent status under Rule 3 of CCS [TS] Rules, prior to its deletion in the year 1989. A Quasi Permanent employee holds a civil post whereas a casual labour is not holder of a civil post. Consequently, the case of Yashwant Hari Katakkar’s case stands on totally different footing facts where the applicant was holder of civil post. 18. Lastly, the learned Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bhasjar Gajanan Kajrakar vs. Administrator, Dadra and Nagar Haveli & Ors., reported in 1993 [2] SLR page 22. The facts of the cited decision have no relevance with the fact of the present case. 18. Lastly, the learned Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bhasjar Gajanan Kajrakar vs. Administrator, Dadra and Nagar Haveli & Ors., reported in 1993 [2] SLR page 22. The facts of the cited decision have no relevance with the fact of the present case. In the cited case, the claim for pension was made under CCS [Pension] Rules, 1972, as the applicant therein had retired from the post of Chief of Police, but was denied pension on the ground that the applicant therein was not holding a substantive post due to pending inquiry which has been initiated against them. The claim for family pension in the case before this Bench is not based on CCS [Pension] Rules and is by a widow of a deceased casual labour holding temporary status only and is governed by a separate set of rules. Thus, the decision in case of Bhaskar Gajanan Kajrekar [Supra] has no effect on the decision of the present case.” 4. We agree with the view taken by the Tribunal and we do not find any illegality in the order of the Tribunal since deceased husband of the petitioner was not regularized and, therefore, there was no question of accruing of family pension to the petitioner and, therefore, the petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Review petition filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal has also been dismissed by order dated 23/6/1998. We do not find any illegality either in the impugned reasoned order or order in review application passed by the Tribunal. Rule discharged.