SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Mad) 2154

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D. KRISHNAKUMAR, P.B. BALAJI, JJ.
V. Kasthuri – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Rep by the General Manager, Chennai & Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 13167 of 2019
Decided On : 25-07-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:L. Chandrakumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1 to R3 P.T. Ramkumar, Standing Counsel

Casual or temporary employees are not entitled to family pension unless they have been absorbed in a permanent post after screening by a screening committee.

Headnote:

Casual Labour - Family Pension - Indian Railway Establishment Manual, 1968, Section 23(2) of the Railway (Services) Pension Rules, 1993 - Chapter XXV of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual - C.A.No.3938 of 2017 - Union of India and Others v. Rabia Bikaner and Others [(1997) 6 SCC 580] - General Manager, North West Railway and Others v. Chanda Devi [(2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 399] - Union of India and Others v. Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai and Others [Order dated 06.03.2019 in W.P.No.676 of 2018]

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, wife of a deceased Casual Labourer in the Railways, sought family pension after her husband's death. The Central Administrative Tribunal rejected her claim, leading to the filing of a writ petition.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the deceased was only a temporary employee and not a regular railway servant, thus not entitled to family pension. The court cited relevant legal provisions and previous decisions to support its finding.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's deceased husband, a Casual Labourer with temporary status, was entitled to family pension under the Indian Railway Establishment Manual.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that casual or temporary employees are not entitled to family pension unless they have been absorbed in a permanent post after screening by a screening committee. The deceased remained a casual/temporary employee till his demise and was not absorbed or subject to screening, making the claim legally unsustainable.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court found no merit in the petitioner's claim.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order of the 4th respondent made in OA.No.594 of 2014 dated 11.02.2015, to quash the same and to consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to sanction pension and other retirement benefits to the petitioner''s husband and consequential family pension to the petitioner.)

D. Krishnakumar, J.

1. The petitioner, challenging the impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai dated 11.02.2015 made in O.A.No.594 of 2014, in and by which her claim for family pension came to be rejected, has filed the instant writ petition.

2. The writ petitioner is the wife of the deceased Mr.K.Veeraragavan, who was engaged as Casual Labourer in the respondent Railways from 11.10.1976 and he continued to work in the said capacity till he died in harness on 15.01.1986. Subsequent to his demise, the wife of the petitioner had approached the railway authorities seeking for family pension in respect of the service rendered by her deceased husband for more than 10 years in the Railway Department, however, the respondents denied the same. Therefore, the petitioner filed O.A.No.594 of 2014 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal [CAT], Chennai. The Tribunal did not accept the contention of the petitioner and dismissed the original application, vide order dated 11.02.2015. Challenging the order passed by the CAT, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.

3. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating as follows:

(i) The petitioner''s husband was neither appointed nor regularized against any regular post and he died on 15.01.1986, even before grant of regularization and therefore, at the time of death, the employee was only a Casual Labour with temporary status.

(ii) Since the petitioner''s husband was not granted regularization, he could not be treated as a regular railway servant and therefore, she cannot be extended the benefits of Family Pension Scheme.

(iii) The grant of rights and privileges to the petitioner''s husband under Chapter 25 of Indian Railway Establishment Manual does not confer on him the status of a regular railway servant, in terms of Section 23(2) of the Railway (Services) Pension Rules, 1993.

(iv) The petitioner''s husband has not fulfilled any conditions of being a substitute and therefore, he cannot be treated as a regular railway servant as contended by the petitioner.

(v) The petitioner''s husband was not regularized, until his date of death due to non availability of vacancies and further the claim of the petitioner at this distant point of time is highly belated.

4. Mr.L.Chandrakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner''s husband was initially engaged as a CPC Khalasi, a substantive post and later was employed as a Gangman, a permanent post and as such, the petitioner''s husband ought to have been treated as "Substitute" in terms of Paras 2315 and 2316 of the Railway Establishment Manual, 1968 and thereby should have been extended with the privileges extended to temporary employees with reference to Section 1 in Chapter 23 & Para 2318 of the 1968 Manual and therefore, the order of the Tribunal holding that the petitioner''s husband was a Casual Labour is liable to be quashed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in C.A.No.3938 of 2017, where it was held that 50% of service rendered as casual labour is entitled to be calculated for pensionary benefits and in the light of the aforesaid decision, the services rendered by the petitioner''s husband in either of the status as Casual Labourer and Substitute will qualify for pension and other retirement benefits and therefore, prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.

5. Mr.P.T.R

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top