UNION OF INDIA Vs. URMILA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the legal position was clear and the judgment of the Supreme Court was categorical on the issue pertaining to the right of the legal heirs of an employee who acquired the temporary status of a "substitute", the petitioners herein have denied the respondents, the benefit of family pension almost for the past two decades. The hardship that was caused to the respondents over the past two decades is not difficult to imagine.

(2.) Late Ram Autar was initially appointed as a casual Khalasi in the East Central Railway by the petitioners on 16.7.1968. Thereafter he acquired the status of "temporary substitute" and was put in a regular pay-scale. He was also extended the benefit of revision of pay-scale through 4th pay revision, from 1.1.1986. He died on 25.12.1994 while in service, leaving behind him two widows, respondents 1 and 2, and a son, the respondent No.3.

(3.) The respondents approached the petitioners for release of death-cum-retirement benefits of late Ram Autar. However, the petitioners denied the same on the ground that the service of late Ram Autar was not pensionable. They approached the Tribunal once by filing O.A. No.624/2004 and in pursuance of the order passed therein, the petitioners passed a speaking order on 30th of August, 2006. Not satisfied with the same, the respondents filed O.A. No.84/2008 before the Patna Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal.