IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8615 of 2011 1.The Union Of India through General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur. 2.The Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur. 3.The Senior Divisional Operating Manager, East Central Railway, Sonepur. ……. Petitioners. Versus Smt.Sushila Devi W/o Late Ram Bhagya Rai, resident of village-Manjhauli, Mohammadpur Bujung, P.O. Sarai in the district of Vaishali, ……. Respondent. For the petitioner : Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, Adv. Mr.Bijoy Kumar Sinha, Adv. 2. 13.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the order of the learned Tribunal dated 14th May 2010 whereby O.A.No. 484 of 2008 preferred by the respondent, widow was allowed and she was held entitled to family pension on the basis of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prabhawati Devi v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 752. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to some later judgments, such as those reported in (1997)6 SCC 580 (Union of India v. Rabia Bikaner) and (2008)2 SCC 108 (General Manager, North West Railways v. Chanda Devi) to submit that the law has been subsequently interpreted differently and no casual Labour even with 2 temporary status will now be treated to be entitled for benefit of family pension after death. On going through the facts of the case, as discussed in the case of Prabhawati Devi (supra) and the facts of the present case, we find material similarities. In this case the husband of the respondent was engaged as a substitute on 14th April 1982 and was granted temporary status on 12th August 1982. His service was regularized on 26th July 2005 and after more than a year from that date, he died on 26th August 2006. On facts, we find that the learned Tribunal has rightly held the case of the respondent to be on the same footing with that of Prabhawati Devi. That judgment of the Apex Court was distinguished in the case of Rabia Bikaner (supra) only on facts. In the case of Chanda Devi, the said judgment was not noticed and no judgment taking a contrary view has been cited before us. Learned counsel for the petitioners has however, submitted that because of new Pension Rules of 2004, the respondent cannot claim family pension, although she may have been entitled for family pension on the basis of judgment in Prabhawati Devi’s case(supra) prior to new 3 Rule of 2004. We do not find any merit in this submission because if the husband of the respondent, on the basis of law laid down in the case of Prabhawati Devi was entitled for death cum-retiral benefit, including family pension, prior to 2004, such benefits are clearly not affected by the introduction of the new Pension Rules of 2004 which shall govern only the cases of those railway employees who joined the service later as their right of retiral benefits, including pension or family pension will be governed by the new or amended Rules. This aspect of the matter stands clarified even by the Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) through its communication dated 1st August 2006, contained in Annexure-3. In response to the query No.2, the reply shows that the provisions of Railway Service (Pension) Rules 1993 are no more applicable to new entrants with effect from 1st January 2004 after amendment made in the Railway Service (Pension) Rule 1993, vide notification dated 30th December 2003. For all the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed. AFR/Jay (Shiva Kirti Singh,J) (Shivaji Pandey, J) 4