M.M.PUNCHHI, SUJATA V.MANOHAR
Prabhavati Devi – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The appellant herein is the widow 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 substitutes 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-availability of permanent or temporary railway servants and which cannot be kept vacant.
4. 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 privilleges under Rule 2313 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. Ind
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.