Back
2006 Supreme(Raj) 1096
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : R.P. Vyas
Union of India - Appellant
Versus
Kaushalya (Smt.) - Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1884 of 2006
Decided On : 04/20/2006
Mr. Vineet Mathur, for the Petitioners.
The main legal point established is that temporary employees, including casual labourers, are entitled to family pension and terminal benefits under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, as extended by government decisions.
Headnote:
PENSION - Family Pension Entitlement - Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 - Rule 54(2), Circular dated 14.04.1987 - Temporary Employees - Casual Labourers Scheme - Government Decision
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a petition against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, where the widow of a temporary employee claimed family pension and terminal benefits under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 after the death of her husband. The Tribunal allowed the application based on the temporary status of the deceased employee and previous government decisions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased employee, despite being a temporary employee, was entitled to family pension and terminal benefits under Rule 54(2) of the Rules, 1972, as extended to temporary employees by a government decision dated 14.04.1987.
Issues: The main issue was whether the widow of a temporary employee was entitled to family pension and terminal benefits under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the government decision dated 14.04.1987, which extended the benefits of the Rules, 1972 to temporary employees, thereby allowing the widow's claim for family pension and terminal benefits.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioners were directed to determine the family pension within three months from the date of the order.
Rajesh Balia, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners. This petition is directed against the order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur dated 23.01.2006.
2. Brief facts leading to this petition are that one Shri Patwari Ram was appointed as Mazdoor in the office of Petitioner No. 2 on 010.1993 at Bikaner. He was given status of temporary employee on 10.09.1996. Said Shri Patwari Ram died in harness on 12.01.2004.
3. Pursuant to the aforesaid unfortunate death of Patwari Ram, the respondent-original applicant Smt. Kaushalya widow of Shri Patwari Ram claimed the family pension and other terminal benefits under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules, 1972”), but her request was turned down vide order dated 04.03.2005, which led to filing of Original Application No. 179/2005.
4. By the impugned Judgment , the original application was allowed by holding that since incumbent Shri Patwari Ram was holding a temporary status in service, therefore, applicant is entitled to family pension and other terminal benefits. In coming to this conclusion, the Tribunal relied on its earlier decision in Original Application No. 219/2003 Smt. Santosh vs. ICAR & Anr., decided on 19.08.2004 writ petition against which was dismissed by this Court on 21.02.2005 D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1038/2005 ICAR & Anr. vs. Smt. Santosh.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners have urged that in the case of Smt. Santosh, the deceased was governed by other set of rules, whereas, as per the rules applicable in the case of deceased Patwari Ram, the applicant is not entitled to any pensionary benefits.
6. Attention was invited to a circular dated 06.06.2002 of Department of Personnel and Training regarding Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regulation) Scheme promulgated by the petitioners, which came into force w.e.f. 01.09.1993. According to learned Counsel for the petitioners, deceased Patwari Ram was accorded temporary status under the said scheme and under this scheme benefit of pension was not extended to persons who have been conferred temporary status.
7. However, it is not disputed that eligibility to retiral benefits including family pension is governed by the Rules of 1972. While Rule 2 of the Rules, 1972 states that “save as otherwise provided in these rules, these rules shall apply to Government Servants including civilian Government servants in the Defence Services, appointed substantively to civil services....” Government of India in 1983 had extended the benefit of pension to its temporary employees also. Vide its order dated 14.04.1987, which has been made available to us the Government extended the terminal benefits and death benefits in the event of death in harness to temporary/quasi permanent Government servants and their families with reduced period of qualifying service as in the case of permanent employees.
8. It was envisaged in Clause (1) that it has been decided that Government servant, who on his retirement from service on attaining the age of superannuation or on his being declared to be permanently incapacitated for further Government service after he has rendered temporary service of not less than 10 years shall be brought within the purview of C.C.S. (Pension) Rules 1972 and the condition of holding a pensionable post in a substantive capacity shall be dispensed with in his case. Consequently, such a Government servant will be eligible for the grant of superannuation or invalid pension, death-cum-retirement gratuity and family pension in accordance with the provisions of the aforesaid rules. Under Clause (2) of the Notification No. G.O.I. O.M. No. 02/04/87 PIC, dated 14.04.1987, Government of India directed that pursuant to Government decisions on the recommendations of the fourth Central Pay Commission announced in the departments Resolution dated 18.03.1987, the earlier notification in that regard dated 30.12.1980 was modified. In the fi
