1. Vide order dated 8th August, 2006 passed in OA No. 165/2006 the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) has directed the Petitioner to accord family pension to the Respondent from the due date along with all arrears within a period of two months. Being aggrieved by this order, Petitioner has filed this writ petition praying therein that the order passed by the Tribunal be quashed.

2. Respondent’s case as set up before the Tribunal is that her late husband Shri Chottey Lal was appointed as Khallasi with the Petitioner on casual basis. On completion of 120 days he was granted temporary status and regular pay scale. Thereafter, he was screened and declared medically fit in B-1 category. In the year 1990 he was considered for regularization, but before completion of process of regularization he unfortunately died on 22nd May, 1991 in a train accident while performing his duties. Claim of the Respondent for grant of family pension was illegally rejected by the Petitioner vide order dated 6th December, 2004 on the ground that Shri Chottey Lal was not a regular employee.

3. As per the Petitioner, Shri Chottey Lal was appointed as casual labour on 5th May, 1984 and after completion of 120 days he was engaged as substitute C & W Khallasi. Screening of Shri Chottey Lal was to be held in the year 1993 along with others, but unfortunately he expired on 22nd May, 1991. At the time of his death, Shri Chottey Lal was a casual labour and his widow was not entitled to family pension.

4. Tribunal held that Respondent in para 4.2 of Original Application had specifically averred that Shri Chottey Lal, having been employed as a “substitute” had acquired temporary status after working for four months. This averment was not specifically controverted by the Petitioner in their reply. It was only stated that Shri Chottey Lal could not be screened along with others and none of his juniors were regularized till 22nd May, 1991. Under the Establishment Rules of Railways it was provided that a casual worker or a substitute who works for 120 days continuously without any break acquires status of a temporary servant. Petitioner had itself taken a plea of completion of 120 days on 31st July, 1988 and engagement of husband of the Respondent as substitute C & W Khallasi provisionally in the grade of Rs.750-940/- on 11th August, 1989, therefore, Late Shri Chottey Lal had acquired temporary status on expiry of four months. It was also observed by the Tribunal that casual worker is never appointed or engaged on a definite pay scale. Tribunal, by placing reliance on Prabhavati Devi Vs. Union of India & Others, reported in (1996) 7 Supreme Court Cases 27, has held that Shri Chottey Lal had acquired temporary status and his widow was entitled to family pension.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has vehemently contended that Shri Chottey Lal was initially appointed as casual labour and after completion of 120 days he was engaged as substitute C & W Khallasi pending screening provisionally in the grade of Rs.750-940 on 11th August, 1989. Since he was not screened for regular post till he died, he had not acquired temporary status as per the rules. He was a casual labour, therefore, his widow was not entitled to family pension. As per para 1501 of Railway Establishment Manual, “casual labour”, including “casual labour with temporary status”, would not fall within the ambit and scope of “temporary railway servant”, thus, Shri Chottey Lal was not entitled to rights and privileges as available to a temporary railway servant. Accordingly, Respondent being widow of a casual labour was not entitled to the benefit of family pension. He has placed reliance on Union of India and Others Vs. Rabia Bikaner and Others reported in (1997) 6 Supreme Court Cases 580. It was further contented that Prabhavati Devi’s case (Supra) was taken note of in this judgment by the Supreme Court but was disti