(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddharth,J.)

Heard Shri K.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Anand Kumar learned counsels for the respondents.

2. Petitioners have filed the above noted writ petition challenging the order dated 22.9.2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad whereby Original Application No. 306 of 2005 filed by the respondent no.1 was allowed granting her family pension and other terminal benefits after the death of her husband.

3. The petitioner's case is that husband of respondent no.1, late Ram Sumer, was employed as Casual labourer from 24.3.1973 and after 120 days of continuous service, he acquired status of temporary railway servant. Husband of respondent no.1 expired on 16.3.1983 and prior to his death he was declared medically unfit vide memo dated 3.8.1982. The respondent no.1 filed Original Application No. 818 of 2004 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad claiming family pension and other terminal benefits alongwith prayer for her son's appointment on compassionate ground, which was disposed of at the stage of admission directing the respondent no.1 to decide her claim. The claim of the petitioner was rejected by order dated 17/18/.11.2004 by the respondent on the ground that there is difference between "substitute" and "causal labour" without screening.

4. Respondent no.1 again approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad by way of Original Application No. 387 of 2005, challenging the order dated 17/18.11.2004 passed by the respondent, which was allowed by the order dated 22.9.2006 directing payment of pension and other post retiral dues to the respondent no.1.The petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the same.

5. The respondent no.1 has filed her counter affidavit stating that her husband was working as temporary railway employee against the regular vacancy of Khalasi/Group-"D" railway servant and drawing his regular salary with authorised payscale, annual increments etc. , therefore, she is entitled for family pension and other post retiral benefits.

6. Respondent no.1 has brought on record by way of annexure-CA 1 Circular dated 26.10.1965 of Railway which provides as follows:-

"Sub-Casual labour-Admissibility of benefits under the Family Pension Scheme for Rly. Employees, 1964.

A copy of Railway Board's letter No. F(P)65PN-1/21, dated 21.10.1965 on the above subject is forwarded for information and necessary action.

Railways Board's letter No. E(NG) 64 CL/25, dated 4.9.1965 was circulated under this office letter No. 220-E/190-VI(Eiv) dated 16.10.1965.

Copy of Rly. Board's letter No. F(P)65 PN-1/21, dated 21.10.65 from the Asst. Director, Finance (Estt.) to the General Managers, all Indian Railways and others.

Sub.As above.

A question has been raised whether Casual labourers who are treated as temporary employees on completion of six months continuous service are covered by the benefits admissible under the Family Pension Scheme for Railway Employees, 1964.

In this connection, it has been observed that the railways had experienced certain difficulties in creating necessary temporary posts to accommodate the casual labourers on completion of six months, continuous service. Orders have been issued in that connection, as per Railway Board's letter No. E(NG) 64CL/25 dated 4.9.2015 wherein it has been stated that while certain benefits will accrue to such employees without their being absorbed against regular posts, the service for pensionary benefits will count only from the dates such employees are actually absorbed against regular temporary posts. The Family Pension Scheme for Railway Employees, 1964 is applicable in the case of regular employees on pensionable establishment. Since the casual labourers will be brought on to the pensionable establishment only on their absorption against regular temporary posts, it follows th