BALI, J. - (1.) THE widow of Ram Niwas, petitioner in the original lis and respondent in the present writ petition, is clamouring for grant of family pension ever since her husband Ram Niwas died on 29. 12. 1988. She succeeded in obtaining the desired relief when she filed O. A. No. 233/2003 before the C. A. T. as the same was allowed vide order dated 7. 4. 2003. It is against this order passed by the learned C. A. T. that the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed. Hopefully, the tales of woe of a widow would end today after seventeen years of litigation.
(2.) THE bare minimum facts that need necessary mention reveal that Ram Niwas was employed on the post of Helper initially on 8. 11. 1979 as casual labour. He was granted temporary status w. e. f. 1. 1. 1983. He was contributing towards provident fund account. Unfortunately, he died on 29. 12. 1988 while on active service. In the year 1986, list was prepared for screening the casual labour in order to regularise them against Group `d' post. Smt. Santosh widow of Ram Niwas, who died in harness, was even though granted appointment on compassionate ground as a substitute but was not granted family pension. Thus, she made representation which was rejected on the ground that as per the Rules, casual labour temporary status holders were not entitled to pension vide orders dated 23. 4. 2003. It is on these basis averments made in the O. A. that widow of Ram Niwas claimed family pension. The relief asked for by the petitioner before the C. A. T. was opposed on the ground that no family pension is payable in case of causal labour temporary status holder employee and therefore, the representation made by her, dated 5. 7. 2003 had been duly considered and turned down vide communication dated 24. 3. 2003 and as per Pension Rules she was not entitled to family pension. Learned C. A. T. on the pleadings and contentions raised by the rival parties observed that the controversy had since already been exhaustively dealt by a co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal at Ahmedabad in Smt. Vallam Badia vs. Union of India and Others (2003 (2) SLJ CAT 271), and therefore the issue was no more res integra. It was also held that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. Rabia Bikaner & Others (1998 (1) SLJ (SC)) on which reliance was placed by the Union of India, had also been taken into consideration while deciding the controversy in issue in Smt. Vallam Badia (supra ). The judgment in Smt. Vallam Badia (supra), had been affirmed by the division bench of the High Court of Gujarat in various appeals decided on 21. 7. 2003. It was also observed that the Bench at Jaipur had also followed the case of Smt. Vallam Badia in the case of Ram Kanhaiya vs. UOI which was decided on 20. 11. 2003. Learned Tribunal in view of the findings, as mentioned above, refrained in entering into elaborate discussion on this point. Mr. M. Rafiq, learned Addl. AG who represents the petitioner Union of India vehemently contends that the status of Husband of the respondent No. 1 was not of temporary employee. He was in fact only a caused labour with temporary status and case of family pension for such an employee would not be covered by any of the decisions rendered by the Tribunal or the High Court and that in fact, the matter was covered in favour of the petitioner Union of India in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Others vs. Rabia Bikaner & Others (supra ). Learned counsel representing the respondent widow of Ram Niwas, however, contends that the status of Ram Niwas was that of a temporary employee and not casual labour with temporary status.
(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance examined the records of the case. In the context of the facts of the present case, we. however, find no merit, whatsoever in the only contention of the learned counsel for the Union of India, as noted above. The petitioner, in the rejoinder filed by it in the present petition itself,has annexed copy of Chapter-XX of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Vol. 2, Para 2005 whereof, in so far as the same is relevant, reads as follows. " 2005. Entitlements and Privileges admissible to Casual Labour who are treated as temporary (i. e. given temporary status) after the completion of 120 days or 360 days of continuous employment (as the case may be ). (a) Casual labour treated as temporary are entitled to the rights and benefits admissible to temporary railway servants as laid down in Chapter XXIII of this Manual. The rights and privileges admissible to such labour also include the benefit of D & A Rules. However, their service prior to absorption in temporary/permanent/regular cadre after the required selection/screening will not count for the purpose of seniority and the date of their regular appointment after screening/selection shall determine their seniority vis-a-vis other regular/temporary employees. This is, however, subject to the provision that if the seniority of certain individual employee has already been determined in any other manner, either in pursuance of judicial decisions or otherwise, the seniority so determined shall not be altered. " ;