1. Claim for family pension by widow of temporary railway employee who died in harness after completing over nine years of service without regularization. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1073
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
Mala Devi – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. – RESPONDENTS
Civil Appeal No. 10672 OF 2016
Decided On : 16-07-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Brijesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ritik Malik, Adv. Ms. Geetanjali Setia, Adv. Mr. Mainsha Suri, Adv. Mr. Akhil Suri, Adv. Mr. Nishi Kant Singh, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. S.D. Sanjay, A.S.G. Mr. Sachin Sharma, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anmol Chandan, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sachin Sharma, Adv. Mr. Harish Pandey, Adv. Mr. Alabhya Dhamija, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Brijesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ritik Malik, Adv. Ms. Geetanjali Setia, Adv. Mr. Mainsha Suri, Adv. Mr. Akhil Suri, Adv. Mr. Nishi Kant Singh, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. S.D. Sanjay, A.S.G. Mr. Sachin Sharma, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anmol Chandan, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sachin Sharma, Adv. Mr. Harish Pandey, Adv. Mr. Alabhya Dhamija, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR
IMPORTANT POINT
Family Pension – Benefit of family pension accrues to family of deceased railway servant who died in harness after completion of one year of continuous service, without any discrimination, whether post was temporary or had been regularized.
Headnote:
Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993 – Rule 75 r/w Rule 18(3) – Family Pension – Denial of – Qualifying service for a temporary railway servant to be entitled for the grant of benefit of family pension is a continuous service of one year – Deceased husband of appellant was absorbed in service as a substitute in 1986, and served for 9 years 8 months and 26 days, just 3 months short of completing threshold of a decade in service – After one year of continuous service, clearing his medical examination and screening, and upon being subsequently deputed on a different post, he acquired status of a temporary railway servant for the purposes of Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993 and became entitled to benefit of family pension, as any other temporary railway servant – Benefit of family pension accrued to family of deceased railway servant who died in harness after completion of one year of continuous service, without any discrimination, whether post was temporary or had been regularized – On this ground alone, denial of family pension to Appellant is unjustifiable – Appellant is entitled for grant of family pension along with arrears of family pension – Respondents shall calculate arrears of family pension and shall pay arrears as well as shall pay regular family pension to Appellant within a period of four months. (Paras 9, 10, 12 and 13)
Facts of the case:
Appellant had approached Central Administrative Tribunal seeking family pension from date of death of her husband with all consequential benefits along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum, which was dismissed by Tribunal vide Judgment/Order dated 23.12.2015. Vide said decision, Tribunal held that claim of Appellant was devoid of any merit, inasmuch as in absence of a document for regularization and permanent absorption of the husband of Appellant, Appellant is not entitled for grant of family pension. Even though, deceased husband of Appellant had reached the stage of screening for regularization of his employment with Railways, Tribunal observed that “screening will not confer any right to pension.” Appellant preferred W. P. (C) before High Court of Judicature at Patna, which was ultimately dismissed vide Impugned Order dated 12.05.2016.
Facts of the case:
Impugned Order dated 12.05.2016 passed by High Court of Judicature at Patna, and Order dated 23.12.2015 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna, set aside. Respondents directed to ensure compliance within four months.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant claims eligibility based on temporary status and one-year service; Respondents argue lack of regularization and failure to meet ten-year qualifying service. (Para 6 , 7 )
3. The court observed that the deceased acquired temporary status through screening and deputation, making the family eligible for pension regardless of regularization or ten-year service. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 )
4. Temporary railway servants dying in harness after one year of continuous service are entitled to family pension under Rule 75 and Rule 18(3) of Pension Rules. (Para 10 , 11 )
5. Appeal allowed; lower orders set aside; Respondents directed to pay family pension, arrears, and an ex-gratia amount. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 )
6. Does a temporary railway servant need to be regularized to be eligible for family pension?
No. Under Rule 75 of the Railway Pension Rules, 1993, the family of a railway servant who dies in harness after completing one year of continuous service is entitled to family pension, regardless of whether the post was temporary or regularized. (Para 10 )
7. Is a ten-year qualifying service required for the grant of family pension to the family of a temporary railway servant who dies in harness?
No. While ten years may be required for superannuation or invalid pension, for family pension in the event of death in harness, the qualifying service is one year of continuous service. (Para 10 , 11 )
8. When does a substitute railway employee acquire the status of a temporary railway servant for pensionary benefits?
Substitutes are afforded rights and privileges of temporary railway servants upon completion of four months of continuous service, as per Rule 1515 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual. (Para 6 , 9 )
JUDGMENT
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
1. The Appellant herein is the widow of Late Shri Om Prakash Maharaj, a temporary employee with the Eastern Indian Railways, who died in harness on 10.07.1996, having completed 9 years 8 months and 26 days of service from the date of his appointment on 15.10.1986.
2. The Appellant had approached the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal vide O.A./050/00276/2014 seeking family pension from the date of death of her husband with all consequential benefits along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum, which was dismissed by the Learned Tribunal vide Judgment/Order dated 23.12.2015. Vide the said decision, the Learned Tribunal held that the claim of the Appellant was devoid of any merit, inasmuch as in absence of a document for regularization and permanent absorption of the husband of the Appellant, Appellant is not entitled for the grant of family pension. Even though, the deceased husband of the Appellant had reached the stage of screening for regularization of his employment with the Railways, the Learned Tribunal observed that “the screening will not confer any right to pension.”
3. Aggrieved thereby, the Appellant preferred a W. P. (C) No. 8524 of 2016 before the High Court of Judicature at Patna, which was ultimately dismissed vide Impugned Order dated 12.05.2016. In drawing reference to the decision in Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. v. Surji Devi, [2008] 2 SCC 310 the High Court observed that family pension is not admissible to the wife of an employee whose services were not regularized. It was further noted that since the service rendered by the husband of the Appellant is 9 years 8 months and 26 days, it falls short of 10 years, which is the minimum qualifying service for grant of family pension. The said Order is under challenge before this Court.
4. The factual conspectus of the captioned Appeal reveals that the deceased, Mr. Om Prakash Maharaj, was appointed “Summer Waterman”, Danapur, vide letter dated 15.10.1986 upon qualifying the medical examinations. Upon completion of more than 7 years of continuous service as a Substitute Porter, he cleared the Screening Test and was deputed at Garhara as a Guard/Shuntman upon instructions of the Dy. Chief Yard Master, Garhara. Unfortunately, on 10.07.1996, the deceased met with a fatal accident while at work and died in harness.
5. The deceased kept working as a ‘substitute’ till his death and had admittedly been in continuous service for 9 years 8 months and 26 days. Upon his demise, the Appellant wife has received ex-gratia to the next kin of deceased and was subsequently appointed as a Substitute Gangman on compassionate grounds, and the employment was regularized after completion of 120 days. The controversy arose when the Appellant wife sought family pension, which has been denied by the Railways on the premise that since the employment of the deceased had not been regularized, the question of family pension does not arise.
6. It was argued on behalf of the Appellant that Rule 1515 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual confers upon the Substitutes, certain rights and privileges as may be admissible to temporary railway servants, from time to time, on completion of four (04) months of continuous service. In the same breadth, reliance was also placed on Rule 18(3) Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993 which extends benefit of family pension and death gratuity in the event of death in harness of a temporary railway servant on the same scale of a temporary railway servant. The said Rule read in conjunction with Rule 75 (2)(a) of the Pension Rules, 1993 also confers upon the family of a railway servant, family pension (hereinafter in this rule referred to as family pension) under the Family Pension Scheme for Railway Servants, 1964, in the event a railway servant dies after competition of one year of continuous service. Indubitably, the deceased was in service for 9 years 8 months and 26 days till the date of his death, and i
