JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J.

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the orders dated March 22, 2021 in Original Application No.2208/2018 and September 9, 2022 in Review Application No.28/2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (`Tribunal', for short). The Tribunal, vide order dated March 22, 2021 allowed the OA filed by the respondent herein and directed the petitioners herein to grant family pension at rates applicable from time to time and other terminal dues as per rules with interest on the arrears which are due from May 23, 2018. By the order dated September 9, 2022, the Tribunal has dismissed the review application filed by the petitioners herein seeking review of order dated March 22, 2021 on the ground that there is no error apparent either on facts or in law in the order dated March 22, 2021.

2. The facts as noted from the petition are that the respondent is the widow of one Narayan Dutt, who was engaged as a casual labour on December 18, 1972 under the petitioners/Northern Railway. He was granted the authorised pay scale of Rs.196-232 w.e.f. April 1, 1974. He was drawing a basic pay of Rs.226/- per month, when he unfortunately died on July 28, 1983. He left behind his widow, three children aged around four years (son), two years, and six months (daughters).

3. On the death of the respondent's husband, the respondent was paid his gratuity. Subsequently, her elder son was appointed as a Group-D employee on compassionate ground by the petitioners in the Railway in the pay scale of Rs.2550-3200 on March 8, 2001.

4. It was the case of the respondent that her case is covered under Rule 75 of Family Pension Scheme for Railway Servants, 1964 (`Rules of 1964', hereinafter) for payment of family pension and other retiral benefits. She made representations in this regard on November 10, 2017. However, there has been no response which resulted in filing of O.A. 2208/2018, wherein she had relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Prabhavati Devi v. Union of India & Ors., (1996)7 SCC 27.

5. The case of the petitioners herein before the Tribunal was that the husband of the respondent, Narayan Dutt was not screened and as such he was not a regular employee. A reference has also been made in the reply filed by the petitioners that the son of the respondent has also been given compassionate appointment.

6. The Tribunal was of the view that the husband of the respondent had put in service from December 18, 1972 to July 28, 1983. The said service was in an authorised scale from April 1, 1974 to July 28, 1983, i.e., of more than nine years, as against one year specified in Rule 75 of the Rules of 1964 which is reproduced as under:

"75. Family Pension Scheme for railway servants, 1964

xxx xxx xxx

(2) Without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub- rule (3), where a railway servant dies:

(a) after completion of one year of continuous service,

or

xxx xxx xxx the family of the deceased shall be entitled to a family pension 1964 (hereinafter in this rule referred to as family pension) the amount of which shall be determined in accordance with the Table below .....

xxx xxx xxx

(3) The amount of family pension shall be fixed at monthly rates and expressed in whole rupees and where the family pension contains a fraction of a rupee, it shall be rounded off to the next higher rupee:

Provided that in no case a family pension in excess of the maximum specified under this rule shall be allowed."

7. The Tribunal had also relied upon the judgment in the case of Prabhavati Devi (supra). The Tribunal has referred to a notification signed by Assistant Personnel Officer-IV, Delhi Division, New Delhi dated September 23, 1983, wherein it was notified that Narayan Dutt, Substitute S&T Khallasi working under Signal Inspector (West) Delhi had died on July 28, 1983 and any information with respect to any amounts due to the said employee, be sent to the Settlement Section of the