UNION OF INDIA Vs. SOMWATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Union of India through General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur and the Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel) North Eastern Railway, Izzatnagar, District Bareilly have filed this petition challenging the order dated 28.01.2011 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) on O.A. No. 320 of 2009 at the instance of respondent No.1. The Tribunal has quashed the order dated 10.04.2007 of the Railway Authority whereby the claim of the respondent no.1 (hereinafter referred to as claimant) for family pension was rejected, and has directed the petitioners to calculate and pay family pension along with arrears to the claimant w.e.f. 16.01.1995, along with interest on the arrears at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of payment, and to continue to pay family pension, etc. according to the rules. The order of the Tribunal further directs the petitioners to pay to the claimant gratuity amount along with interest at the rate of 9 % per annum till the date of payment.

(2.) The claimant's case before the Tribunal was that her husband was enlisted as Casual Labour on 07.07.1978 in the Engineering Department of Northern Eastern Railway, Pilibhit. He worked in different spells on different jobs in the Engineering and Construction Department as Casual Labour Khalasi, Seasonal Waterman, etc. upto 08.09.1985. On 09.09.1985, he was granted time scale of pay against a regular temporary post in the Engineering Department under IOW-1st Pilibhit. Thereafter, he worked in the same capacity against regular temporary post from 09.09.1985 to 16.01.1995 when he was murdered while returning from duty. After his death, the claimant made several representations to the authorities for grant of family pension, which was ultimately denied by the order dated 10.04.2007, on the ground that since her husband was just a time scale khalasi, therefore, she would not be entitled to family pension. The claimant relying on Family Pension Rules, 1964, and Railway Board's letter No. F(P) 65 PN 71/2 of 21.10.1965, claimed that she was entitled to family pension, as her husband was absorbed on 09.09.1985 against a regular temporary post. The claimant also relied on decision by Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in O.A. No.481 of 1995 (Smt. Mithai Devi Vs. U.O.I)

(3.) On behalf of the Railways (petitioners in this petition) a counter reply was filed contesting the claim, inter alia, on the following grounds: