SMT. LALITA DEVI WIFE OF LATE RAM PARICHHAN RAM, MASSON UNDER CHIEF ENGINEER/SURVEY, EASTERN RAILWAY KOLKATA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & POST Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER, EASTERN RAILWAY, KOLKATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order dated 3rd Dec., 2015 contained in Annexure-13, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in O.A. 787/2011 is being challenged in the present writ application along with order dated 21st Jan., 2016, which was passed in Review Application No. 05/2016. Both the OA as well as review application was dismissed by the Tribunal not finding any merit in any of the contentions and claim raised by the present petitioner against the Railway Administration.

(2.) From the pleadings, the facts emerge that husband of the petitioner Late Ram Parichhan Ram was initially appointed as a Casual Gangman on 18.07.1972 under the Construction Department for a survey project, which was going on in the District of Giridih. He was subsequently re-designated as a Chainman on 20th Oct., 1974 and granted temporary status w.e.f. 01.01.1981. The petitioner is the widow, who claimed that her husband had acquired a temporary Government status. He became a Khalasi with a pay-scale and on the husband successfully appearing in a trade test was promoted to the post of Mason with a pay-scale of Rs. 260-400.00. Her case is that it was a case of appointment on the post of Mason-cum-Carpenter w.e.f. 01.05.1985. The husband died on 19.09.1988 so she claimed family pension from the respondent authorities.

(3.) The respondents rejected the claim on the ground that he was not a regular employee but only a casual employee with temporary status and the Rules do not provide for grant of family pension. The litigation started thereafter. In the first round by an application which was filed before the Tribunal. It was disposed of with direction upon the authorities to pass a speaking order. That speaking order remained pending because of the bifurcation of the zone and it was finally passed on 26.07.2011, a copy of which is Annexure-12 to the writ application. The second round of litigation started with O.A. 787/2011 in which the order (Annexure-12) has been challenged.