JUDGMENT : Pradip Kumar Mohanty, J. The present writ petition is filed against the order dated 23.4.2008 passed in O.A. No. 33 of 2006, whereby the application filed by respondent no.1 was allowed to the extent that the deceased husband of applicant-respondent no.1 has rendered continuous service of over six years to the Railways and the applicant is entitled to family pension as per Rule 75(2)(a) read with Rule 75(19) of the Railway Service (Pension) Rules,1993 and also to pay interest on the amount accrued thereupon. 2. The facts of the case is that the husband of respondent no.1 late Shambhu Nath Pathak was initially appointed as a substitute employee in the Railways on 27.6.1979 and was given temporary status on 26.10.1979. After rendering continuous service over six years, the employee expired on 12.11.1985. Since no benefits was given to the widow of deceased employee, respondent no.1 filed O.A. No. 235 of 2004 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Circuit Bench at Ranchi for payment of family pension and also for payment of death-cum-retiral benefits of her late husband-Shambhu Nath Pathak. The aforesaid O.A. was disposed of vide order dated 12th September, 2005, with a direction to the applicant to submit all the documents with regard to her claims before respondent no.2 (Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, East-Central Railway, Dhanbad) and the said respondent was to dispose of the same within three months thereafter, by passing a speaking order about the claim of the applicant and if any of the claim is found to be correct and payable to the applicant, the payment was directed to be made within one month thereafter, with simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum over the amount. 3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of the learned Tribunal, though the petitioner-Railways passed a speaking order dated 18.11.2005 admitting the fact that husband of the applicant was granted temporary status from 26.10.1979 vide letter no. ET.2/Sub/TS/79 dated 19.11.1979 and while working continuously as such, he expired on 12.11.1985, but rejected the claim of respondent no.1 for payment of family pension. However certain amount towards provident fund was released by the petitioner-Railways. Respondent no.1 (widow of deceased employee) challenged the said order dated 18.11.2005 before the learned Tribunal by filing O.A. No.33 of 2005. The petitioner-Railways also filed its written statement in the aforesaid Original Application. However certain amount towards provident fund was released by the petitioner-Railways. Respondent no.1 (widow of deceased employee) challenged the said order dated 18.11.2005 before the learned Tribunal by filing O.A. No.33 of 2005. The petitioner-Railways also filed its written statement in the aforesaid Original Application. The said O.A. was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 23.4.2008, holding therein that applicant (respondent no.1 herein) is entitled for family pension as per Rule 75(2)(a) read with Rule 75(19) of the Railway Pension Rules and also ordered for payment of simple interest @ 10% per annum with effect from 12.9.2005, which is under challenge in this writ petition. 4. Mr. Mahesh Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioner, assailed the judgment of the learned Tribunal, on the following grounds:- (I) There is illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment, inasmuch as the Tribunal has not followed the provisions of Railway Pension Rules in its right perspective; (II) Respondent no.1-widow of the deceased employee is not entitled to get any family pension inasmuch as the employee was in temporary status at the time of his death and hence, Railway Family Pension Rules will not be applicable in his case; (III) The O.A. filed by applicant (respondent no.1 herein) is barred by limitation, inasmuch as there is a delay of more than twenty years in filing the application; (IV) The employee not being a permanent employee of the Railways, his widow is not entitled for family pension as per Para-406 of Railway Pension Rules, 1993 and Para-32 of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, as these Rules are applicable only to the permanent employees, who have acquired permanent absorption. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision, rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, North West Railway and ors. vs. Chanda Devi, as reported in (2008) 2 SCC 108 . 5. Mr. Rajiv Nandan Prasad, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1, has submitted that no infirmity or illegality has been committed by the Tribunal in granting family pension to the widow of the deceased employee in view of Rule 75(2)(a), which provides that where a railway servant dies after completion of one year of continuous service, the family of the deceased employee would be entitled for pension. The word “continuous service” has been defined in Rule 75(19) and as per this Rule, “continuous service” means service rendered in temporary or permanent capacity. In the present case, the deceased employee rendered “continuous service” for over six years in temporary status and this fact has been admitted by the petitioner in its written statement, filed before the Tribunal. Learned counsel further contended that the judgment of the Tribunal passed in O.A. No.235 of 2005 dated 12.9.2005 having not been challenged by the petitioner-Railway, it now cannot take the plea of limitation in second round of litigation. In support of his argument, learned counsel for respondent no.1 has relied upon a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabhavati Devi vs. Union of India, as reported in (1996) 7 SCC 27 . 6. There is no dispute that the deceased employee was appointed on 27.6.1979 as substitute and got temporary status with effect from 26.10.1979. After rendering continuous service over six years, the employee expired on 12.11.1985. Since no benefits was given to the widow of deceased employee (respondent no.1), she preferred O.A. No. 235 of 2005 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was disposed of on 12.9.2005. Pursuant to the direction, given by the Tribunal, the petitioner-Railway passed an order on 19.11.2005 to the effect that the deceased employee was working as a Substitute and was not absorbed in any regular post. Against that, respondent no.1 (widow of the deceased employee) filed O.A. No.33 of 2006, which was disposed of in her favour vide order dated 23.4.2006. 7. Perused the records, grounds for assailing the judgments, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Railways Family Pension Rules and Regulations. Now under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court will examine whether there is any infirmity or illegality committed by the Tribunal while passing the impugned judgment and that too without following the Rules and Regulations. 8. For easy reference, relevant provisions of Railway Family Pension Rules and Regulations are quoted below:- “75. Now under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court will examine whether there is any infirmity or illegality committed by the Tribunal while passing the impugned judgment and that too without following the Rules and Regulations. 8. For easy reference, relevant provisions of Railway Family Pension Rules and Regulations are quoted below:- “75. Family Pension Scheme for railway servants, 1964:- xxxxxxxxx (2) without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub rule (3) where a railway servant dies- (a) after completion of one year of continuous service, or xxxxxxxxx The family of the deceased shall be entitled to a family penson 1964 (hereinafter in this rule referred to as family pension) the amount of which shall be determined in accordance with the table below:- Table Basic pay per month of railway servant Rate of family pension per month inclusive of dearness relief upto average Consumer Price Index-608 (I) Not exceeding Rs.1500/- 30 percent of basic pay subject to a minimum of Rs.375 (II) Exceeding Rs.1500 but not exceeding Rs.3000 15 percent of basic pay subject to a minimum of Rs.450 (III) Exceeding Rs.3000 15 percent of basic pay subject to a minimum of Rs.600 and a maximum of Rs.1250 Explanation – The expression “Continuous one year of service” where-ever it occurs in this rule shall be construed to include “less than one year of continuous service” as defined in clause (b). xxxxxxxxx (19) For the purpose of this rule – (a) “Continuous service” means service rendered in temporary or permanent capacity in a pensionable establishment and does not include- (i) Period of suspension, if any, and (ii) Period of service, if any, rendered before attaining the age of eighteen years;” (b) “family”, in relation to railway servant, means- (i) wife in the case of a male railway servant or husband in the case of a female railway servant; (ii) a judicially separated wife or husband, such separation not being granted on the ground of adultery and the person surviving was not held guilty of committing adultery; (iii) son who has not attained the age of twenty five years and unmarried daughter who has not attained the age of twenty five years, including such son and daughter born after retirement or adopted legally. (Authority:- Notification vide letter no. (Authority:- Notification vide letter no. F(E) III/94/PN-1/31 (Amendment) dated 3.2.95-SO No.511) (c)“pay” means: (i) the emoluments as specified in clause (a) of rule 49, or (ii) the average emoluments as referred to in rule 50 if the emoluments of the deceased railway servant has been reduced during the last ten months of his service otherwise than as penalty. Provided that the element of dearness allowances, which has been treated as dearness pay under the Railway Board's letter No. PC III/79/DP/1 dated the 11th June, 1979, shall not be treated as pay for the purpose of this rule.” (Emphasis supplied) 9. We have gone through the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of General Manager, North West Raillway and ors. vs. Chanda Devi (supra), relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner and found that the fact of the instant case is different from that of the case relied upon. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabhavati Devi vs. Union of India and ors. (supra) has observed that the deceased employee acquiring the status of a 'substitute' and after continuing as such for over a year, if dies after one year's continuous service, his widow and children became entitled to family pension by applying Railway Pension Rules and Regulations. In paragraphs-4 and 5 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under :- “4. The deceased kept working as a 'substitute' till 5-1-1987 when he died. But before his demise he came to acquire certain rights and privilege under Rule 2318 of the Rules applicable to railway establishments. The said rule provides that substitutes shall be afforded all the rights and privileges as may be admissible to temporary railway servants, from time to time, on completion of 6 months' continuous service. Indubitably, the deceased had worked beyond 6 month and that too continuously. Having become a temporary servant in this manner, he became entitled to family pension under sub-rule 3(b) of Rule 2311, whereunder it is provided that the widow/minor children of the temporary Railway servant, who died while in service after a service of not less than 1 year continuous (qualifying) service shall be eligible for a family pension under the provisions of para 801 of the Manual of Railway Pension Rules. Further in their case, the amount of death gratuity admissible will be reduced by an amount equal to the employee's 2 months' pay on which the death gratuity is determined. The Railways have paid to the appellant gratuity under this sub-rule, but have denied to her the family pension. Her claim before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, was dismissed which has culminated in this appeal. 5. On the acquisition of temporary status derived in the manner stated above, it is difficult to sustain the orders of the Tribunal and to deny family pension to the widow and children of the deceased. See in this connection for support L. Robert D'Souza Vs. Executive Engineer, S.Rly. (1982) 1 SCC 645 and Union of India Vs. Basant Lal (1992) 2 SCC 679 . We have put the proposition to the learned counsel appearing for the Railways but he is unable to support the orders of the Tribunal; overlooking as it does the chain in consequence, making the deceased acquire a temporary status and on his demise his widow and children acquiring the right to claim family pension.” 11. With the above touchstone, after taking into consideration the aforesaid rules and regulations, this Court examined the order of the learned Tribunal and found that there is no illegality and infirmity in the said judgment of the learned Tribunal and the Tribunal after following the rules and regulations, prescribed under the Railway Family Pension Rules, has rightly held that the respondent-widow of the deceased employee was entitled for the family pension and further directed that payment would be made within one month thereafter with simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum over the amount. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to petition being barred by limitation has no legal stand because the learned Tribunal has not allowed the benefit with effect from the date of death of the employee i.e. 12.11.1985. The learned Tribunal has granted the benefits to respondent no.1 with effect from 12.09.2005 while allowing O.A. No. 33 of 2005. Even otherwise also, widow of an employee has a right to get family pension every month and when she is deprived of the said right, family pension being a part of continuous course of action, the point of limitation cannot be taken. 12. Even otherwise also, widow of an employee has a right to get family pension every month and when she is deprived of the said right, family pension being a part of continuous course of action, the point of limitation cannot be taken. 12. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said judgment and order of the learned Tribunal. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.