UNION OF INDIA Vs. KAMALABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issue involved in the present writ petition is as regards entitlement of the respondent to grant of Family Pension. 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) THE entitlement of an employee or his legal representatives to grant of Family Pension is recognized by various provisions of Indian Railway Establishment Manual.