http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: PRABHAVATI DEVI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT16/11/1995

BENCH: PUNCHHI, M.M. BENCH: PUNCHHI, M.M. MANOHAR SUJATA V. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR  752            1996 SCC  (7)  27  1995 SCALE  (6)553

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      Heard learned counsel for the parties.      The appellant  herein is the window of Late Bipin Kumar Rai who was a temporary Railway servant in this manner : He, initially, was  taken in  the  Railway  Establishment  as  a casual worker;  and w.e.f. 27.4.83 he acquired the status of a ‘substitute’.  According to  the definition  given in Rule 2315 of  the terms and conditions applicable to ‘substitute’ in temporary service, they are persons engaged in the Indian Railway  Establishments   on  regular   scales  of  pay  and allowances  applicable  to  posts  against  which  they  are employed. These  posts may  fall  vacant  on  account  of  a railway servant  being on leave or due to non-avilability of permanent or  temporary railway servants and which cannot be kept vacant.      The deceased kept working as a ‘substitute’ till 5.1.87 when he  died. But,  before his  demise, he  came to acquire certain rights  and privileges  under Rule 2318 of the Rules applicable to Railway Establishments. The said rule provides that substitutes  shall  be  afforded  all  the  rights  and privileges  as   may  be  admissible  to  temporary  railway servants, from  time to  time, on  completion of  6  months’ continuous service.  Indubitably, the  deceased  had  worked beyond 6  months and  that too continuously. Having become a temporary servant  in this  manner, he  became  entitled  to family pension  under sub-rule 3(b) of Rule 2311; whereunder it is  provided that the widow/minor children of a temporary Railway servant,  who dies  while in service after a service of not  less than  1 year  continuous  (qualifying)  service shall be  eligible for a family pension under the provisions of para 801 of the Manual of Railway Pension Rules. Further, in their  case the  amount of death gratuity admissible will be reduced  by an  amount equal  to the employee’s 2 months’ pay on  which the death gratuity is determined. The Railways

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

have paid to the appellant gratuity under this sub-rule, but have denied  to her the family pension. Her claim before the C  A   T,  Patna  Bench,  Patna,  was  dismissed  which  has culminated into this appeal.      On the  acquisition of  temporary status derived in the manner stated  above, it  is difficult to sustain the orders of the  Tribunal and to deny family pension to the widow and children of the deceased. See in this connection for support L Robert D’Souza Vs. Ex. Engineer, Southern Railway and Anr. (1982 1  SCC 645  and U.O.I. and Ors Vs. Basant Lal and Ors. (JT 1992  (2) SC  459). We  have put  the proposition to the learned counsel  appearing for the Railways but he is unable to support  the orders  of the  Tribunal; overlooking  as it does the chain in consequence, making the deceased acquire a temporary status  and on  his demise  his widow and children acquiring the right to claim family pension.      We, thus,  allow this  appeal; set  aside the  impugned orders of the Tribunal and allow the claim to family pension as projected by the appellant. We also direct the railway to work out  the pension  due within  2 months  from today  and deliver the  pension as  also the  arrears to  the appellant within 15  days thereafter,  if not  earlier  and  also  pay interest at  the rate  of 12% per annum from the date it was due till payment.      The appellant shall get her costs throughout.