UOI Vs. JAYWANTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE husband of the respondent was engaged as a casual labourer by the Indian Railways on 15.3.1977 and was accorded the status of a temporary employee, date of the order is uncertain since neither party has filed a copy of the order in question. On 10.1.1986 an order was passed recording that respondents husband was decasualized and as learned counsel for the parties conceded, the said order was to be followed by an order appointing husband of the respondent to a group D post on regular basis. Admittedly, no such order appointing husband of the respondent to a group D post has been issued.

(2.) HUSBAND of the respondent died on 5.7.1989. Respondent sought appointment on compassionate basis and was granted appointment as a Khalasi under compassionate quota. She was happy till somebody told her that she would be entitled to pension on account of her husband having died in service. On 17.8.2006 she served a legal notice requiring pension to be paid to her. The notice was not responded to. She filed OA No.1192/2006 in which a direction was issued that her representation be decided with a speaking order. The department passed a speaking order on 28.3.2007 in which claim was rejected on the basis of para 2005 of chapter XX of Indian Railway Establishment Manual Volume 2 by recording that casual labour was not eligible to reckon half the period of service rendered as qualifying service till the person was absorbed on regular basis. It was informed to the respondent that her husband was not absorbed on regular basis.

(3.) PROCEEDING ahead with the narration of facts, the respondent filed OA No.1689/2007 praying that the order rejecting her claim for pension be quashed and pension be paid to her. She urged that the automatic consequence of her husband being decasualized was her husbands regular appointment to a group D post. Alternatively it was pleaded that as per Railway Board Circular dated 3.7.2002 decasualized labour if not screened for regular appointment due to delay caused by the department would entitle benefits to the family of the employee if he died before a regular appointment order to a regular post was issued. Thus, the respondent pleaded that admittedly her husband being decasualized, date not known, he died in harness on 5.7.1989 and assuming there was no order appointing him on a regular basis to a group D post, she would be entitled to pension in terms of the Railway Board Circular dated 3.7.2002.