By the Court.—Heard Sri A.K. Gaur, Advocate, for petitioners and Sri Anand Kumar, Advocate, for respondent.

2. This writ petition is directed against judgment and order dated 30.11.2012 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad in Original Application No. 1145 of 2009 directing petitioners to pay family pension to applicant-respondent, Smt. Kishori, widow of Late Radhey Shyam, ex-Lamp Man.

3. From the record, we find that aforesaid Radhey Shyam was initially engaged as casual Gangman on 4.5.1974. His fitness was examined on 22.12.1982 and then he was posted as temporary Gangman in the pay scale of Rs. 775-1025 with effect from 29.7.1987. He was screened for regularization and by Divisional Railway Manager, N.C.R., Railway’s letter No. 220-E/Screening/P.Way/97/98 dated 10.9.1997, he was regularized having been already placed in the panel of Gangman. He was subsequently found medically unfit on 16.10.2001 and died on 25.10.2001. Applicant-responded claimed family pension but the same was denied by respondents by computing qualifying service of late Radhey Shyam as under:

1	Date of appointment (As temp. status-Casual gangman)	29-7-87
2	Date of regular appointment after empanelment	16-10-01
3	Total Service (29-7-87 to 16-10-2001)	14 years 2 months 18 days
	(a) Non qualifying service due to LWP (Statement at S.No. 53)	3 years 4 months 25 days
	(b) Non qualifying service (50% of Temp. Status service from 29-9-87 to 10-9-97 (Daily rated casual service shall not Count for qualifying service for Pension/Family Pension order of Rly. Bd. Contained in PS No. 7673 At Sl.No. 78 to 79).	5 years 0 months 21 days
4	Total non qualifying service (A+B)	8 years 5 months 16 days
5	Total service	14 years 2 months 18 days
	(-) Non qualifying service	8 years 5 months 16 days
	Qualifying service	5 yeas 9 months 2 days

4. Tribunal has found that for the purpose of payment of family pension, there is no provision contemplating qualifying service of ten years, and, on the contrary, family pension is governed by different Rules. Earlier family pension was governed by Rule 2311 and it was examined by Supreme Court in Prabhavati Devi v. Union of India and others, (1996) 7 SCC 27 and Tribunal relied on following observations made by Apex Court:

“3. The appellant herein is the widow of late Bipin Kumar Rai who was a temporary Railway servant in this manner : He, initially, was taken in the Railway Establishment as a casual worker; and w.e.f. 27.4.83 he acquired the status of a ‘substitute’. According to the definition given in Rule 2315 of the terms and conditions applicable to ‘substitutes’ in temporary service, they are persons engaged in the Indian Railway Establishments on regular scales of pay and allowances applicable to posts against which they are employed. These posts may fall vacant on account of a railway servant being on leave or due to non-availability of permanent or temporary railway servants and which cannot be kept vacant.

4. The deceased kept working as a ‘substitute’ till 5.1.87 when he died. But, before his demise, he came to acquire certain rights and privileges under Rule 2318 of the Rules applicable to Railway Establishments. The said rule provides that substitutes shall be afforded all the rights and privileges as may be admissible to temporary railway servants, from time to time, on completion of 6 months’ continuous service. Indubitably, the deceased had worked beyond 6 months and that too continuously. Having become a temporary servant in this manner, he became entitled to family pension under Sub-rule 3(b) of Rule 2311; whereunder it is provided that the widow/minor c