Pradip Kumar Mohanty, J.

The present writ petition is filed against the order dated 23.4.2008 passed in O.A. No. 33 of 2006, whereby the application filed by respondent no.1 was allowed to the extent that the deceased husband of applicant-respondent no.1 has rendered continuous service of over six years to the Railways and the applicant is entitled to family pension as per Rule 75(2)(a) read with Rule 75(19) of the Railway Service (Pension) Rules,1993 and also to pay interest on the amount accrued thereupon.

2. The facts of the case is that the husband of respondent no.1 late Shambhu Nath Pathak was initially appointed as a substitute employee in the Railways on 27.6.1979 and was given temporary status on 26.10.1979. After rendering continuous service over six years, the employee expired on 12.11.1985. Since no benefits was given to the widow of deceased employee, respondent no.1 filed O.A. No. 235 of 2004 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Circuit Bench at Ranchi for payment of family pension and also for payment of death-cum-retiral benefits of her late husband-Shambhu Nath Pathak. The aforesaid O.A. was disposed of vide order dated 12th September, 2005, with a direction to the applicant to submit all the documents with regard to her claims before respondent no.2 (Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, East-Central Railway, Dhanbad) and the said respondent was to dispose of the same within three months thereafter, by passing a speaking order about the claim of the applicant and if any of the claim is found to be correct and payable to the applicant, the payment was directed to be made within one month thereafter, with simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum over the amount.

3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of the learned Tribunal, though the petitioner-Railways passed a speaking order dated 18.11.2005 admitting the fact that husband of the applicant was granted temporary status from 26.10.1979 vide letter no. ET.2/Sub/TS/79 dated 19.11.1979 and while working continuously as such, he expired on 12.11.1985, but rejected the claim of respondent no.1 for payment of family pension. However certain amount towards provident fund was released by the petitioner-Railways. Respondent no.1 (widow of deceased employee) challenged the said order dated 18.11.2005 before the learned Tribunal by filing O.A. No.33 of 2005. The petitioner-Railways also filed its written statement in the aforesaid Original Application. The said O.A. was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 23.4.2008, holding therein that applicant (respondent no.1 herein) is entitled for family pension as per Rule 75(2)(a) read with Rule 75(19) of the Railway Pension Rules and also ordered for payment of simple interest @ 10% per annum with effect from 12.9.2005, which is under challenge in this writ petition.

4. Mr. Mahesh Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioner, assailed the judgment of the learned Tribunal, on the following grounds:-

(I) There is illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment, inasmuch as the Tribunal has not followed the provisions of Railway Pension Rules in its right perspective;

(II) Respondent no.1-widow of the deceased employee is not entitled to get any family pension inasmuch as the employee was in temporary status at the time of his death and hence, Railway Family Pension Rules will not be applicable in his case;

(III) The O.A. filed by applicant (respondent no.1 herein) is barred by limitation, inasmuch as there is a delay of more than twenty years in filing the application;

(IV) The employee not being a permanent employee of the Railways, his widow is not entitled for family pension as per Para-406 of Railway Pension Rules, 1993 and Para-32 of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, as these Rules are applicable only to the permanent employees, who have acquired permanent absorption.

In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision, rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the