( 1 ) THIS group of five cases (S. C. A. No. 15807/03 Smt. Rukhiben Rupabhai, widow Rupabhai Megabhai V/s. Union of india and Ors. , S. C. A. No. 4776/04 Mrs. Valliamma Armugam, widow of Kalian muthuswamy V/s. Union of India and Ors. , s. C. A. No. 5641/04 : Smt. Sakudi B. Damor, widow of Bhikhabhai Virsinh V/s. Union of india and Ors. , S. C. A. No. 5770/04 : Smt. Puniben M. Mandora, widow of Mathurbhai mandora V/s. Union of India and Ors. , s. C. A. No. 15808/03 : Mrs. Chandra muthuswamy, widow of Vishwalingam chidambaram V/s. Union of India and Ors.) is proposed to be decided by this Judgment, since the question involved for consideration and determination is same, except slight variation in S. C. A. No. 15808/03, Mrs. Chandra muthuswamy, widow of Vishwalingan chidambaran V/s. Union of India and Ors. , where employee was initially Casual labourer for approximately ten years, thereafter appointed Substitute,

( 2 ) HOWEVER, before dealing with the precise submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties, desirable it would be to make mention of material facts of these Petitions. S. C. A. NO. 15807/03:

( 3 ) SHRI Rupabhai Megabhai (deceased) was in the service of respondents since 1972 to 1986, He died in harness leaving behind the widow and the children. The family has no other source of income, it was fully dependent on relatives. After the death of her husband, petitioner was not paid family pension, therefore, she approached the central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), ahmedabad Bench, through Original application No. 129 of 2002 stating that in the similar case of widow of Casual Labourer with temporary status, family pension had been granted by the Tribunal, the appeal (S. C. A. No. 12456/03) against the said decision having been rejected by this Court, therefore, respondents be directed to grant her family pension on similar lines, CAT did not follow the precedent since this Court did not decide the S. C. A. No. 12456/03 on merits, The husband of petitioner was granted temporary status, There was no Justification for his non-absorption as permanent employee of the Railways. Temporary status employees are to be treated at par with the temporary employees of the Railways, therefore, they are entitled to same benefits, including family pension.

( 4 ) RESPONDENTS state that husband of petitioner expired on 20-09-1986. Petitioner started the dispute in 2000, therefore, Matter is belated. Competent authority passed the order dated 01-03-2002 after consideration of facts of the case in the context of Rules, regulations and provisions of Indian Railway establishment Manual (IREM), therefore, order of CAT dated 10-09-2003 in O. A. No. 129/ 02 is Just and proper requiring no interference, particularly in absence of patent irregularity or error apparent on the face of the record, as per Apex Court decision in mohd. YUNUS V/s. MOIID. MUSTAQIN (AIR 1984 SC 38 ). There is no scope for judicial intervention in exercise of extraordinary Jurisdiction under Article 226/ 227 of Constitution of India, otherwise, scheme was formulated and finalised as per apex Court decision in Indrapal Yadavs case (1985 (2) SCC 648 ). Scheme stipulates that project casual labourers are granted certain incentives/benefits with passage of time, but at no point of time, it was intended by the railway Administration to treat those persons as permanent employees or members of regular staff, Daily wagers, project casual labourers were being given temporary status on completion of stipulated days and identified as project casual labourers with temporary status. Such workers are extended the benefits like scale of pay, pass and PIG facilities, medical facilities, leave facilities. They are governed under DAR Rules. Such employees have to undergo the scrutiny process prescribed for treating them regular/permanent employees of the Railway Administration: In getting a temporary status, such employee becomes eligible for almost all