UNION OF INDIA Vs. CHHANDA MONAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application the Union of India (Railway Authorities) have challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 25. 2. 2005 whereby and whereunder the learned Tribunal held that the respondent (applicant before the learned Tribunal) is entitled to get widow pension.

(2.) ADMITTED fact is that the husband of the respondent (applicant before the learned Tribunal) was not formally absorbed in the permanent post though all the process for his absorption was taken and before he was medically examined on 20th August, 1986 for absorption against regular vacancy. He was found fit in his category by the Assistant Divisional Medical Officer, Malda, Eastern railway. He was to appear for a screening test for absorption on 19th August, 1991. However, he failed to appear in the test and as such he was not absorbed. The respondent (applicant before the learned Tribunal) got compassionate appointment. The learned Tribunal relying on Supreme Court judgment and also the relevant rules held that the respondent (applicant before the learned tribunal) is entitled to acquire such status which attracts the benefit of family pension.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner before us drawing our attention to the relevant rules relating to Family Pension Scheme for Railway Servants, 1964 contends that if the aforesaid rule is read carefully, it would appear that unless the employee concerned is absorbed as the permanent one, he cannot get family pension. However, he is entitled to get pension as temporary employee. The learned Tribunal has applied the law incorrectly.