By the Court.—The Union of India through General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur and the Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel) North Eastern Railway, Izzatnagar, District Bareilly have filed this petition challenging the order dated 28.1.2011 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) on O.A. No. 320 of 2009 at the instance of respondent No. 1. The Tribunal has quashed the order dated 10.4.2007 of the Railway Authority whereby the claim of the respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as claimant) for family pension was rejected, and has directed the petitioners to calculate and pay family pension alongwith arrears to the claimant w.e.f. 16.1.1995, alongwith interest on the arrears at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of payment, and to continue to pay family pension, etc. according to the rules. The order of the Tribunal further directs the petitioners to pay to the claimant gratuity amount alongwith interest at the rate of 9 % per annum till the date of payment.

2. The claimant’s case before the Tribunal was that her husband was enlisted as Casual Labour on 7.7.1978 in the Engineering Department of Northern Eastern Railway, Pilibhit. He worked in different spells on different jobs in the Engineering and Construction Department as Casual Labour Khalasi, Seasonal Waterman, etc. upto 8.9.1985. On 9.9.1985, he was granted time scale of pay against a regular temporary post in the Engineering Department under IOW-1st Pilibhit. Thereafter, he worked in the same capacity against regular temporary post from 9.9.1985 to 16.1.1995 when he was murdered while returning from duty. After his death, the claimant made several representations to the authorities for grant of family pension, which was ultimately denied by the order dated 10.4.2007, on the ground that since her husband was just a time scale khalasi, therefore, she would not be entitled to family pension. The claimant relying on Family Pension Rules, 1964, and Railway Board’s letter No. F(P) 65 PN 71/2 of 21.10.1965, claimed that she was entitled to family pension, as her husband was absorbed on 9.9.1985 against a regular temporary post. The claimant also relied on decision by Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in O.A. No. 481 of 1995 (Smt. Mithai Devi v. U.O.I.)

3. On behalf of the Railways (petitioners in this petition) a counter reply was filed contesting the claim, inter alia, on the following grounds:

(a) the husband of the claimant was unscreened casual labour working as time scale khalasi, and was not a regular railway servant, therefore, he was not entitled to pension;

(b) granting of time scale means that casual labours are allowed temporary status for availing some facilities like leave, pass etc., but it does not confer any right for the benefits admissible to permanent railway servant;

(c) time scale /temporary status granted to casual labours does not provide them with regular employee status until they are screened and are found suitable in the screening test for appointment on regular basis;

(d) the parity claimed by the claimant with regard to a decision in O.A. No. 481 of 1995 (Smt. Mithai Devi v. Union of India) is not available to her as in that case the person was screened and was under process for absorption/appointment against regular post whereas the husband of the claimant did not enjoy similar status.

4. In a rejoinder to the counter reply of the railways, the claimant reiterated her stand and stated that time scale khalasi (temporary scale granted) are entitled to pensionary benefits. Moreover, keeping an employee temporary for an indefinte period, like 17 years in the case of her husband, cannot absolve the railways from its liabilities to an employee. In any case, regularisation of the services is the responsibility of the employer and for the lapses on the part of an employer the widow cannot suffer. However, in the rejoinder, the claimant did not