UNION OF INDIA Vs. MANORAMA PATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. A.K. Mishra, Learned Counsel for the Railways and Mr. Ashok Das, Learned Counsel for the caveator -Opp. Party.

(2.) THIS Writ Application is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.10.2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 107 of 2002, which was filed by the caveator -Opp. Party. The Tribunal allowed the Original Application holding that the caveator -Opp. Party is entitled to get the family pension and consequently directed the petitioners to immediately grant family pension to her by computing the entire period of service rendered by her husband in the Railways.

(3.) THE service book of the deceased husband of Opp. Party was also summoned along with similarly situated employee Babaji and it was found that the deceased husband of the Opp. Party was initially appointed as temporary Railway man in the scale of pay of Rs. 70 -85/ - and he was also awarded Rs. 25/ - for not participating in the strike. He was allowed to work in temporary capacity in the same pay scale and was allowed annual increments till his death. During his service period, he was also allowed to leave etc. On perusal of record of similarly situated employee, i.e. Babaji Jena, the Tribunal found that he was appointed as temporary Khalasi on 24.6.1972 and was allowed annual increments also periodically till his premature death on 19.3.1993. Therefore, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that both (Babaji) and the deceased husband of the Opp. Party) should have been treated at par, i.e., on temporary service. The widow of Babaji was allowed family pension and, therefore, the Tribunal held in the impugned judgment and order that the deceased husband of the Opp. Party was appointed in temporary service of Railway on 24.9.1970 who died on 1.6.1983, after serving about twelve years in temporary capacity.