Central Administrative Tribunal Mumbai Bench: Mumbai This the 23^rd day of June, 2025 Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.G. Sewlikar, Member (J)

Smt. Thakubai Sonawane w/o late Vithal Kashinath Sonawane Residing at flat No. 2/12, Koyana B, Arya Swananda Nagar, Gaondevi Mandir Road, Kulgaon, Badlapur (East) 421503 District: Thane.

-Applicant (By Advocate Mr. Rajendra P Gupta)

Versus

1. UNION OF INDIA through the Secretary (E), Ministry of Railways (Railway Board), Rail Bhawan, New Delhi 110001.

2. The General Manager, Central Railway, GM Building, Second floor, Mumbai CSMT 400001.

3. Divisional Railway Manager (P), Annexed Building, CSMT 400001.

- Respondents (By Advocate Mr. Sachin Patil)

ORAL ORDER

Per: Justice M.G. Sewlikar, Member (J)

The applicant has filed this OA for getting family pension.

2. Applicant’s contention is that her husband late Shri Vithal Kashinath Sonawane was a monthly rated khalasi. Later on, he was made permanent. Late Shri Vithal Kashinath Sonawane rendered continuous service from 24th October 1980 to 16th May, 1993. Vide communication dated 14th July, 1992 the applicant was absorbed in class IV category and accordingly, seniority list was prepared and he was placed at serial no. 296.

3. Late Shri Vithal Kashinath Sonawane passed away on 16th May, 1993. The applicant made an application for family pension on 17th March, 2020. This application was rejected by the order dated 07th July, 2021 (Annexure-A1) on the ground that Shri Vithal Kashinath Sonawane being a monthly rated casual khalasi, the applicant is not entitled to family pension. This order is impugned in this OA.

4. The respondents do not dispute that the deceased Shri Vithal Kashinath Sonawane was a monthly rated Khalasi. They also do not dispute that late Shri Vithal Kashinath Sonawane rendered service from 24th October 1980 to 16th May, 1993. Their only contention is that late Shri Vithal Kashinath Sonawane being a temporary servant i.e. monthly rated khalasi was not entitled to pension and, therefore, the applicant is also not entitled to family pension.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondents.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant points out that the deceased Shri Vithal Kashinath Sonawane was absorbed as Khalasi vide order dated 14th July, 1992 on regular basis. And, therefore, he was a permanent employee and was entitled to pension. In terms of Rule 18(3) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, a temporary railway servant’s family is also entitled to family pension, in case, a temporary railway servant dies in harness.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that there is no record to show that the deceased Shri Vithal Kashinath Sonawane was absorbed and, therefore, he was not entitled to pension and consequently, applicant will also not be entitled to family pension. He further submits that the record has been destroyed as the preservation period was over.

8. I have thoughtfully considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for their respective parties.

9. It is not disputed that the deceased Shri Vithal Kashinath Sonawane was working as a monthly rated Khalasi and he rendered service from 24th October 1980 to 16th May, 1993. The only question that needs decision is whether he was permanently absorbed by the respondents. For this purpose, applicant has produced record to show that he was permanently absorbed as Khalasi. At Annexure-A-3, the applicant has annexed a photocopy of the Letter dated 14th July, 1992 which was addressed to CE BB CPO(C/C) and other authorities. Along with this communication, a list of Casual Labours/Substitutes Monthly Rated who have been screened and found suitable for absorption in Class IV category has been annexed. At serial no. 296, the name of the deceased employee appears. 10. From this record, it is clear that the deceased was absorbed as Khalasi. This shows that the deceased employee had become permanent and, therefore, he was entitled to pension and consequen