Point of Law : Railway Rules made a distinction between casual labour having temporary status and temporary railway servant - Pension Rules under which Railway employees are granted pension do not apply to casual employees conferred with temporary status which merely protects a casual employee’s service.

JUDGMENT :

Suneet Kumar, J.

1. Heard Sri Rajesh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Union of India-Railways and Sri Pramod Kumar (Saxena) assisted by Sri Ramesh Narain Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 22 May 2012, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (for short “Tribunal”), in Original Application No. 1144 of 2006 (for short “OA”), whereby, allowing the family pension to the first respondent/original applicant.

3. During pendency of the writ petition, the original applicant died, the legal heirs have been substituted.

4. The original applicant, a widow, of R.R. Pandey, who was employed as casual labour with the Railways from 8 August 1977. He was given temporary status w.e.f. 1 January 1985, vide order dated 25 November 1985. The employee died on 12 July 1988. On the death, the widow/original applicant came to be engaged as fresh casual labour, vide order dated 22 August 1988. In 2012, she approached the Tribunal by filing OA seeking family pension for herself and for her minor son under the pension Rules applicable to the employees of the Railways. The OA was contested by the petitioners/respondents, inter alia, contending that for entitlement of pension minimum 10 years of employment is mandated under the Rules. The husband of the respondent was engaged as a casual labour from 29 August 1979 to 1 September 1980, and thereafter with breaks until his death, according to the petitioner the total length of service rendered by the deceased employee was 8 years 9 months and 9 days. In other words, having rendered less than 10 years of service, family pension was not admissible to the respondent, since the deceased employee was a casual labour.

5. The learned Tribunal relying on Rule 18 of the Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993 (for short ‘Pension Rules’) in particular sub-Rule (3) of Rule 18, allowed the OA. The petitioner/respondents were directed to grant family pension to the respondent/original applicant from the date of eligibility and also to pay arrears.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Pension Rules, in particular Rule 18, would not apply in the case of casual labour, therefore, the respondent/original applicant was not entitled to family pension. It is further submitted that at no point of time the husband of the respondent-original applicant came to be appointed as a temporary railway servant, nor, was he regularized on a regular Group D post, accordingly, as per Pension Rules a casual labour is not entitled to pension.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/original applicant submits that the employee, admittedly, came to be engaged as a casual labour but subsequently, was given temporary status w.e.f. 1 January 1985, after granting age relaxation of 1 year 3 months and 16 days. Accordingly, it is urged that the employee was conferred temporary status/regularized against a Group D post. It is further submitted that it is noted in the impugned judgment of the learned Tribunal that the respondent/original applicant came to be given compassionate appointment on the death of the employee, meaning thereby, that had the employee not been a temporary railway servant or a regular employee, compassionate appointment would not have been given to the respondent.

8. Further, it is submitted that the case of the respondent/original applicant would be governed as per Section (a) non-gazetted staff (1) Temporary Railway Servants Rule 2301 under Chapter XXIII of the Railway Establishment Manual, which was applicable on the date of death of employee i.e. 1988. He further submits that the Rule defining ‘temporary railway servant’ subsequently, came to be amended/modified, as reflected in Chapter XV Volume (1) (revised addition 1989) and in the terms and conditions applicable to railway servants and substitutes in temporary servants non-gazetted staff Rule (1501). It