DIVL. PERSONNEL OFFICER Vs. KARTHIYANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ext. P1 order passed by the Labour Court, Kozhikode is under challenge. It arose from a petition submitted by the first respondent claiming arrears of family pension for the period from 1.9.1988 to 30.11.1994. The Railway administration had put up an objection that basically the petitioner cannot maintain a claim for family pension in view of the circumstance that her late husband was not a Railway servant, who was eligible to the benefits of family pension. But the Court had declined to consider this aspect since according to the Court, the issues stood settled between the parties in C.P.(C).153/83 and C.P.(C).197/88 pertaining to periods from 1975 to 1988. The Court observed the following:

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that orders referred to in Ext. P1 also had been subjected to challenge, but the challenge had been repelled by this Court/Central Administrative Tribunal. Notwithstanding standing counsel submits that eligibility to family pension as per the Pension Rules is to be reexamined since the Labour Court had committed an error in overruling the objections in the manner that had been done. The error, according to him, has to be set right at some point of time, and the Court should get itself free from the entanglements of technicalities.

(3.) By virtue of his continuous service, the petitioner's husband had been conferred with temporary status as envisaged under Chap.14 of the Railway Establishments Rules. He had passed away before he could be screened for regular selection. The provisions of the Railway Pension R.1950 indicate that such benefits might not be available to a casual labourer in spite of his obtaining temporary status. Learned counsel also referred to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3370/96 and in S.L.P.(C).13091/95 indicating that no retirement benefits are available to casual labourers. It can therefore safely be presumed that a claim for family pension, normally was inadmissible.