UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. BINDU DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that Gajendra Lal Karn (deceased), husband of the respondent, initially got the employment in the railways on 6th July, 1983 as a casual worker and during the course of employment acquired status of temporary railway servant, and a 'substitute'. He also does not dispute that he died in harness on 3rd of December, 1992 in a road accident. He, however, relied upon para 103(b) of the Railway Establishment Code in support of his submission that family pension could not be paid to the respondent as her husband had not completed ten years of qualifying service.

(2.) WE find that the Central Administrative Tribunal relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Prabhavati Devi v. Union of India and others, 1996 (72) FLR 87 (SC), while granting relief to her. In Prabhavati Devi case, her husband Bipin Kumar Rai initially joined the railway establishment as casual worker and then on 27.4.1983, he acquired the status of substitute. The employee continued to work as substitute till 5.1.1987, when he died. The Supreme Court held that the deceased employee acquired certain rights and privileges under Rule 2318 of the Rules applicable to Railway Establishments and having become a temporary servant, he became entitled to family pension under sub -rule (3)(b) of Rule 2311.

(3.) IN view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, the facts of which are identical to the present case, the order of the Tribunal allowing the original application and directing the present petitioners to pay the family pension to the original applicant (respondent herein) from the date of death of her husband i.e., 3rd December, 1992 with interest cannot be said to be faulted.