JUDGMENT A.S. Chandurkar, J. 1. The issue involved in the present writ petition is as regards entitlement of the respondent to grant of Family Pension. 2. The husband of the respondent, one Hari Borkar, was employed as a Ladderman with the Indian Railways. During the course of service, he expired on 12.08.1970. Hence, the respondent, his widow, sought settlement of the dues, including payment of Family Pension. On 18.02.1994, the respondent submitted an application giving various details as regards her entitlement for the Family Pension. On 02.09.1996, the Indian Railways informed the respondent that as her husband was employed as a 'Substitute' Ladderman, there was no provision for grant of Family Pension. Though the respondent made a representation on 10.10.1996, the same was not accepted on the ground that the pension scheme was not applicable to a 'Substitute' Employee. The respondent, thereafter, filed Original Application No.37/1998 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur. By an order dated 10.09.1998, the aforesaid Original Application came to be allowed and the respondent was held entitled for grant of Family Pension from 12.11.1994 onwards. It is this order dated 16.09.1998 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur, that is challenged in the instant writ petition. 3. Shri Lambat, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that as the services of the husband of the respondent were not treated as being of a temporary employee, the Family Pension Scheme, 1964, was not applicable. It was submitted that the husband of the respondent was appointed on 16.01.1967 as a 'Substitute' Ladderman and he expired on 12.08.1970. Considering the fact that there was no automatic absorption/appointment to Railway Service of a 'Substitute' employee unless the prescribed procedure was followed, the respondent was not entitled for grant of Family Pension. It was submitted that the case of the respondent was considered by the Pension Adalat but, the respondent was not found eligible for grant of Family Pension. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Others Versus Rabia Bikaner & Others, reported in (1997)6 SCC 580 , it was urged that a similar issue was considered in the aforesaid case and it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that a 'Substitute' Employee, who has not been absorbed against a regular post would not be eligible for grant of Family Pension. It was, therefore, submitted that the impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal holding otherwise was required to be set aside. 4. Smt. Jog, the learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, supported the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal and submitted that considering the status of the respondent's husband, the respondent was entitled for grant of Family Pension. It was submitted that on a 'Substitute' employee completing six months continuous service, the status of a temporary employee was attained and on that basis, the family members of such employee were entitled to grant of Family Pension. It was submitted that the Central Administrative Tribunal rightly allowed the Original Application by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabhavati Devi Versus Union of India, reported in (1996) 7 SCC 27 . It was, thus, submitted that the Tribunal rightly held the respondent entitled for grant of Family Pension from a period of three years prior to filing of the Original Application. It was, therefore, urged that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. The entitlement of an employee or his legal representatives to grant of Family Pension is recognized by various provisions of Indian Railway Establishment Manual. Paragraph 2315 of the aforesaid Manual defines 'Substitute' as persons engaged in the Indian Railway Establishments on a regular scale of pay and allowances applicable to posts against which they are employed. Paragraph 2318 of the aforesaid Manual prescribes the Rights and Privileges admissible to a 'Substitute' employee. The said paragraph being relevant, the same is reproduced hereunder. “2318. Rights and privileges admissible to the 'Substitute's :' Substitute's should 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. 'Substitute' school teachers may, however, be afforded temporary status after they have put in continuous service of three months and their services should be treated as continuous for all purposes except seniority on their eventual absorption against regular posts after selection. 'Substitute' school teachers may, however, be afforded temporary status after they have put in continuous service of three months and their services should be treated as continuous for all purposes except seniority on their eventual absorption against regular posts after selection. Note:- The conferment of temporary status on the 'Substitute's on completion of six months continuous service will not entitle them to automatic absorption/appointment to railway service unless they are in turn for such appointment on the basis of their position in select lists and/or they are selected in the approved manner for appointment to regular railway posts.” 6. Paragraph 2311 of the aforesaid Manual provides for payment of Provident Fund and Gratuity dues. As per Paragraph 2311(3)(b), a widow of a temporary Railway servant, who dies while in service after having served for at least one continuous year, is held eligible for Family Pension under the provisions of Para 801 of the aforesaid Manual. It is to be noted that the husband of the respondent was appointed as a 'Substitute' Ladderman on 16.01.1967 and after serving for about 3½ years, expired on 12.08.1970. The entitlement of the respondent to Family Pension would, therefore, have to be considered in the light of Paragraph 2318 of the aforesaid Manual. As per said paragraph, on completion of six months continuous service by a 'Substitute', all rights and privileges as admissible to a temporary Railway Servant would be admissible. However, the Note along with the aforesaid Paragraph clarifies that the conferment of temporary status on a 'Substitute' on completion of six months' continuous service would not entitle him to automatic absorption/appointment to Railway Service unless such 'Substitute' is in turn for such appointment on the basis of his position in the select list and/or he is selected in the approved manner for appointment to the regular Railway post. It is, therefore, clear that mere completion of six months continuous service by a 'Substitute' would not automatically have the effect of absorption/appointment to Railway service unless the procedure prescribed for absorption/appointment has been followed. It is only if such procedure as prescribed is followed, that the provisions of Paragraph 2311(3)(b) of the Manual would come into play and, thereafter, the family members of such temporary Railway servant, who dies after putting in not less than one year continuous service, would be eligible for grant of Family Pension. 7. It is only if such procedure as prescribed is followed, that the provisions of Paragraph 2311(3)(b) of the Manual would come into play and, thereafter, the family members of such temporary Railway servant, who dies after putting in not less than one year continuous service, would be eligible for grant of Family Pension. 7. In the present case, it has not been shown that the procedure as prescribed for absorption/appointment to a regular railway post was followed, insofar as services of the respondent's husband is concerned. Though service of more than six months as a 'Substitute' employee was rendered, that by itself would not be sufficient to hold the respondent entitled for grant of Family Pension. The petitioners in their reply before the Central Administrative Tribunal have specifically taken a stand that the aforesaid procedure was not followed and, hence, the Family Pension Scheme, 1964 was not applicable in case of the respondent. There is no material on record to hold that such procedure was duly followed and, thereafter, the husband of the respondent was absorbed/appointed as a temporary employee. 8. The Central Administrative Tribunal, in the impugned judgment, has held that the case of applicant before it was covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabhavati Devi (Supra). A perusal of the aforesaid judgment indicates that on considering the provisions of paragraph 2318 of the aforesaid Manual, it was held that the employee therein had acquired the status of the temporary employee in the manner prescribed. On that basis, the claim of the widow of the employee therein was allowed. The aforesaid judgment was thereafter considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its subsequent decision in the case of Union of India (Supra). In the subsequent judgment, it was noted that the employee therein had not been screened before being given appointment on temporary post. It was further observed by referring to the decision in the case of Prabhavati Devi (Supra) that in the said case, after being duly screened, the employee had been appointed on a temporary post. Though being given appointment on a temporary post, the employee was treated as a 'Substitute'. It was further observed by referring to the decision in the case of Prabhavati Devi (Supra) that in the said case, after being duly screened, the employee had been appointed on a temporary post. Though being given appointment on a temporary post, the employee was treated as a 'Substitute'. Thus, distinguishing the earlier judgment in the case of Prabhavati Devi (Supra), it was held that in absence of the prescribed procedure being followed before being appointed on a temporary post, the family members of the concerned employee would not be entitled to grant of Family Pension. The case in hand is, therefore, covered by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India (Supra). The procedure prescribed has not been shown to be followed and, hence, mere acquisition of the status of a temporary employee would not by itself entitle the respondent to grant of Family Pension. 9. In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that the learned Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal erred in allowing the original application preferred by the respondent. In absence of the procedure as prescribed by Paragraph 2318 of the Manual being shown to have been followed, the respondent would not be entitled to the benefit of the Family Pension. Thus, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 16.09.1998 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal is quashed and set aside. Original Application No.37/1998 stands dismissed. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. Writ petition is allowed.