Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Eluri Marthamma vs Divisional Railway Manager, S.C. ... on 6 September, 1999
Equivalent citations: 2000(1)ALT183
Author: B. Subhashan Reddy
Bench: B. Subhashan Reddy
ORDER V. Eswaraiah, J.
1. This is a takenup writ petition on legal-aid side, on the representation of the petitioner, who is a lady belonging to the Scheduled Caste, complaining of nonpayment of family pension on account of death of her husband, late Sri Eluri Sriramulu, who died while in service of the respondents under the Permanent Way Inspector, Rajahmundry and also not providing of compassionate appointment.
2. The claim of the petitioner is opposed by the respondents on the ground that the petitioner's husband died on 18-01-1980 and as on the date of his death, his status was only that of a Casual Labourer and as such, the petitioner was entitled only for the provident fund and the gratuity and that the same were paid and that she was neither entitled for family pension nor for compassionate appointment. The question of delay has also been raised for disallowing the claim of the petitioner.
3. Mr. Mohd. Osman Shaheed, the learned Counsel appointed on legal-aid, contended that the husband of the petitioner, even though was drawn on casual basis, had continuously and uninterruptedly worked for 15 years under. Permanent Way Inspector and had acquired the status of temporary servant and that sub-rule 3(b) of Rule 2311 obligates the respondents to pay the family pension, even if the petitioner's husband was a temporary railway servant, as by the date of his death i.e., 18-1-1980, he had put in uninterrupted service of not less than one year. He has also drawn our attention to para 801 of Manual of Railway Pension Rules and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Prabhavati v.. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 752. Similar question arose in the said case decided by the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court held that family pension was payable to the widow of late Bipin Kumar Roy, who was treated as a 'substitute' and who was initially taken in the railway establishment as casual worker and thereafter acquired the status of a substitute and the said substitutes were afforded all the rights and privileges as are admitted to temporary railway servants. The proposition laid down by the Supreme Court in the said case squarely applies to the instant case too. Hence, we hold that the petitioner is entitled for family pension.
4. With regard to the compassionate appointment, the stand taken by the respondents is untenable for the reason that even though initially, the compassionate appointment was not provided for the dependants of the casual employee with temporary status, the same was extended to such persons as per the proceedings of the Railway Board No. E/NG/II/96/RC-1/96, dated 14-3-1997, even for the personnel died in harness before 31-12-1986. But, the contention of the Railway Board is that since application was not filed pursuant to the said proceedings, the petitioner's plea for compassionate appointment cannot be considered. It is also contended that since there is considerable delay, appointment cannot be given.
5. We do not appreciate the stand taken by the Railway Board regarding the delay on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner is a poor lady belonging to Scheduled Caste and merely because she did not file application within the stipulated time pursuant to the Railway Board's proceedings dated 14-3-1997, she cannot be denied of her right to be considered for compassionate appointment. In the alternative, she has also pleaded that if the said post cannot be given to her, it may be given to her son. In the counter filed, it is not the case of the Railway Board that the claim of the petitioner did not merit consideration. The ground is of only limitation. In fact, limitation has got no role to play in a matter of a welfare scheme like this and that apart, the right to be considered for compassionate appointment was recognised for the first time only by virtue of the proceedings dated 14-3-1997 of the Railway Board and the petitioner had filed application for compassionate appointment even in the month of March, 1996 and as there was no scheme as on that date, her claim was refused. Now, a technical plea has been raised by the respondents on the ground that after the proceedings of the Railway Board dated 14-3-1997, fresh application has not been filed by the petitioner. As already stated above, in a welfare scheme, which is benevolent in nature and particularly meant for the down-trodden like the petitioner, there cannot be any limitation aspect and there cannot be any room for any technicalities as the substance should matter and not the form. In the circumstances, we hold that the petitioner or her son, as may be chosen in between them, is entitled for compassionate appointment.
6. In the result, this writ petition is allowed directing the respondents to pay the family pension to the petitioner and also consider the compassionate appointment as stated above. This exercise shall be made within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.