IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (220) CWP-8995-2019 (O&M)

Date of Decision : August 25, 2025 Union of India and others .. Petitioners Versus Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present: Mr. Ashish Rawal, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Karnail Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)

1. In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the order dated 03.08.2018 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) by which, the benefit of pension has been granted in favour of respondent No.2 after her husband, who was the employee of the Railway, died while being in service and that too in a railway accident.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though, the husband of respondent No.2 was appointed as casual employee in the year 1978 and in the year 1983, he was granted the temporary status and while on duty in February, 1999, he died in a railway accident but before his death, he was not screened and therefore, grant of benefit of pension without screening could not have been allowed in favour of respondent No.2 and therefore, the said order dated 03.08.2018 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Tribunal may kindly be set aside.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that husband of respondent No.2 was a casual labour working from the year 1978 onwards and had more than 21 years of service with the petitioners on the day when he died in a railway accident and that too while performing the duties but still, respondent No.2, late wife of late Sh. Ram Parteek has not been granted the benefit of family pension, which act on the part of the petitioners is incorrect and the impugned order passed by the Tribunal granting the said benefit is perfectly valid and legal and the same may kindly be upheld.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

5. As per the respondents, Railway Establishment Manual, Volume-II is applicable for the grant of benefit of family pension. It should be noted that as per letter dated 26.10.1965 issued by Railway Board, a casual labourer is entitled for the grant of family pension under Family Pension Scheme, 1964 upon their absorption against a temporary post in regular establishment provided and they have put in six months as a casual labourer so as to get entitled for temporary status and one year on the subsequent temporary post.

6. In the present case, the casual service of the husband of respondent No.2 started in the year 1978 and he was granted the temporary status in the year 1983. He worked in service for a period of 16 years after getting the temporary status hence, under the Family Pension Scheme of

1964, respondent No.2 was entitled for the grant of pensionary benefits.

7. The only arguments which have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the husband of respondent No.2 was not screened before he unfortunately died while in service.

8. It may be noticed that there was a period of 16 years available with the petitioners to screen the husband of respondent No.2 after granting him the temporary status in the year 1983. The petitioners never screened the husband of respondent No.2 during the said period and nothing has come on record to show that there were no post available which could justify the act of the petitioners so as not to screen the employee.

9. Further, it may be noticed that the husband of respondent No.2 died while being on duty and that too in a railway accident. That being so, denying the benefit of pension to respondent No.2 is totally arbitrary and illegal and contrary to the Family Pension Scheme of 1964.

10. The reliance is being placed upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners in CWP No.3192 of 2019 titled as Ram Kali vs. Central Administrative Trib