IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13966 of 2008 THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS Versus BINDU DEVI ----------- For the petitioners: Mr. Hemendra Pratap Singh For the respondent : None --- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice And Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal --- Dated, the 15th September, 2008 The counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that Gajendra Lal Karn (deceased), husband of the respondent, initially got the employment in the railways on 6th July, 1983 as a casual worker and during the course of employment acquired status of temporary railway servant, and a „substitute‟. He also does not dispute that he died in harness on 3rd of December, 1992 in a road accident. He, however, relied upon para 103 (b) of the Railway Establishment Code in support of his submission that family pension could not be paid to the respondent as her husband had not completed ten years of qualifying service. 2. We find that the Central Administrative Tribunal relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Prabhavati Devi vs. Union of India and others, (1996) 7 SCC 27 while granting relief to her. In Prabhavati Devi case, her husband Bipin Kumar Rai 2 initially joined the railway establishment as casual worker and then on 27.4.1983, he acquired the status of substitute. The employee continued to work as substitute till 5.1.1987, when he died. The Supreme Court held that the deceased employee acquired certain rights and privileges under Rule 2318 of the Rules applicable to Railway Establishments and having become a temporary servant, he became entitled to family pension under sub-rule 3 (b) of Rule 2311. 3. The Supreme Court considered the matter thus: “The deceased kept working as a „substitute‟ till 5.1.1987 when he died but before his demise, he came to acquire certain rights and privileges under Rule 2318 of the Rules applicable to Railway Establishments. The said rule provides that substitutes shall be afforded all the rights and privileges as may be admissible to temporary Railway servants, from time to time, on completion of 6 months‟ continuous service. Indubitably, the deceased had worked beyond 6 months and that too continuously. Having become a temporary servant in this manner, he became entitled to family pension under sub-rule 3(b) of Rule 2311, whereunder it is provided that the widow/minor children of a temporary Railway servant, who dies while in service after a service of not less than 1 year continuous (qualifying) service shall be eligible for a family pension under the provisions of para 801 of the Manual of Railway Pension Rules. Further, in their case the amount of death gratuity admissible will be reduced by an amount equal to the employee‟s 2 months‟ pay on which the death gratuity is determined. The Railways have paid to the appellant gratuity under this sub-rule, but have denied to her the family pension. Her claim before the Central Administrative Tribunal Patna Bench, Patna was dismissed which has culminated in this appeal. On the acquisition of temporary status derived in the manner stated above, it is difficult to sustain the orders of the Tribunal and to deny family pension to the widow and children of the deceased. See in this connection for support L. Robert D’ Souza v. Executive Engineer, S Rly. and 3 Union of India v. Basant Lal. We have put the proposition to the learned counsel appearing for the Railways but he is unable to support the orders of the Tribunal; overlooking as it does the chain in consequence, making the deceased acquire a temporary status and on his demise his widow and children acquiring the right to claim family pension.” 4. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, the facts of which are identical to the present case, the order of the tribunal allowing the original application and directing the present petitioners to pay the family pension to the original applicant (respondent herein) from the date of death of her husband i.e., 3rd December, 1992 with interest cannot be said to be faulted. 5. Although, three months‟ time granted by the tribunal for payment of family pension to the respondent has expired, we grant further time of one month to the present petitioners to pay family pension to the respondent (original applicant), as directed by the tribunal, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum as directed in the impugned order. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed in limine. R. M. Lodha, CJ. Kishore K. Mandal, J. Neyaz/