Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Manowara Bewa vs Eastern Railway on 22 November, 2018
■ s t / • / • .©
-./ 0'f\' 35^/^35^16 '• /,
-i • IN THE CENTRAL AMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CALCUTTA BENCH t NIZAM PALACE, MULTI STORED BUILDING, 11th. FLOOR, No.- 234/4, A.J.C. BOSE ROAD, KOLKATA - 700020, WEST BENGAL.
f t AN APPLICATION, UNDER SECTION -19 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE . TRIBUNAL ACT- 1985. i ORIGINAL APPLICATION No- OF 201^ ^ i SMT. MANOWARA BEWA, Widow of Lt. Kajem All, Gangman, P.W.I., Burdwan, Engg. Deptt., Howrah Division, Eastern Railway. Residence : Vill - Nowsera, P.O.- Char-Labangola, P.S.- Bhagwangola Distt.- Murshidabad, PIN.-742135, W.B. ... APPLICANT.
- VERSUS-
1. The Union of India, through the Secretary Department of Rail Way, Government of India, t .1 ( I 1 Rail Bhaban, New Delhi - 110001.
2. The General Manager, Eastern Railway Eastern Rail Way Head Quarter ( Rail-Bhaban ), Fairlie Place » No.-17, Netaji Subhas Road, t Kolkata - 700001. W.B.
3. The Divisional Railway Manager Howrah Division, Eastern Railway D.R.M.-Building Howrah, Howrah Rail-way Station, Howrah -711101, W.B.
4. The Chief Personnel Officer, Howrah Division, Eastern Railway D.R.M.-Building Howrah, Howrah Rail-way Station, Howrah - 711101, W.B.
5. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Howrah Division, Eastern Railway D.R.M.-Building Howrah • Howrah Rail-way Station Howrah -711101, W.B. ... RESPONDENTS.
J
/
t 1
/
O.A.No.350/635/2016 Date :
j
■ (
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. A.K. Patnaik, Judicial Member Y r MANOWARA BEWA
-VS-
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(E. RLY.) For the applicant : Dr. S. Sinha, counsel For the respondents : Mr. S.K. Das, counsel , % \ \ A.K. Patnaik, Judicial 'r~, ^ This is the third1 Tound^J^^ion^filed>bv*the applicant stating that her 6 v//1 \\v si husband while working in the^Railway as]a<Gangman since/l6.12.1978 , died in '' '■>> ■" / harness on 06.4.1985 and .thus, after his death thqugh^she was entitled to family / / y pension and other retirement dues of her late-Kusband, the same has not been paid to her. It has been stated that even if it is taken that her husband was a casual gangman then also by taking 50% of casual service, she was entitled to the said benefits which have not been paid to her. Earlier she had filed OA No. 1162/2003 which was disposed of on 14.9.2004 with direction to the Respondents to consider the OA as a representation and consider/dispose of the same within a period of four months. In compliance of the said order the Respondents considered the case of the applicant and intimated the reason for which she was not entitled to pension and other pensionary benefits of her late husband. The said order was challenged by her again in OA No. 840/2006 which » i :, t / 2 was disposed of on 17.9.2007 with direction to the competent authority to reconsider the order of rejection after giving personal hearing to the applicant. In J t'r* v compliance of the order passed by this Tribunal, the competent authority f reconsidered the case of the applicant after allowing an opportunity of personal hearing and rejected her claim on the ground that husband was not a regular employee of the railway and, therefore, she is not entitled to family pension and other pensionary benefits as claimed by her. Being aggrieved by said order of rejection, the applicant has filed this OA seeking the following reliefs:
"8(A) A direction upon the Respondents, concerned Rly. Authorities to Recall/Rescind the Whimsical/Un-lawful Order, dated -01/07/2008, passed by the Senior Divisional -Personnel' .Officer, Howrah Division, Eastern Railway, Mr. T.K. Mandat by *Refusing^tV§ele^se the Applicant's Family Pension, Provident fcunci Amount^along-with flie other Rly. Service Benefits of Her Deceased ^Rly.y^nployee^ Husband, ^fthb- died-in-harness on 06/04/1985, at the''earliest.\\\| l//y\ "s' \ 8(B) A Direction ujHe^ResppiJSentsJconceljiecS Rly. Authorities to Entertain the ApplicanV^Pra^/Representation Dafed - 07th April, 2015, to the said Rly.) Authorities, 'by iHef-^tb^Release-Stie/ Applicant's Family Pension, Provident Fund' Amo'u ntraiong-with 'the other/Rly. Service Benefits of Her Deceased Rly. .Employee Husband, who^ died-in-harness on 06/04/1985, on the basis orthe.AppJicafit's Prayer,/Dated - 07/04/2015, at the earliest. ^ ^/ 8{C) A Direction upon the-Respondents, concerned Rly. Authorities to Release forthwith the Applicant's Family Pension, Provident Fund Amount along-with the other Rly. Service Benefits of Her Deceased Rly. Employee Husband, who died-in-harness on 06/04/1985, on the basis of the Applicant's Prayer, Dated -07/04/2015, according to the Rly. Acts and Rules, at the earliest.
8(D) A Direction upon the Respondents concerned Rly. Authorities to Call the Applicant and Pay the Family Pension and the Amount of Provident Fund along-with other Rly. Service Benefits of Her Deceased Rly. Employee Husband, who died-in-harness on 06/04/1985, on the basis of the Applicant's prayer, Dated - 07/04/2015, according to the Rly. Acts and Rules, at the earliest, for Her and her orphan Children, whose Rly. Employee Father was the earning member of them and to see her matter sympathetically, humanitically on Compassionate ground, as a victimized- family of the bona-fide Rly. individual.3
3(E) A Direction upon the Respondents, concerned Rly. Authorities to Start to Pay and Continue the Applicant's Monthly Family-Pension, Amount of Provident Fund and other Rly. Service benefits of Her Rly. Employee Husband along-with to Release the Dues Arrears Amounts thereon and proper interest thereof by Paying the Applicant at a time, at the earliest, according to the Rly. Acts & Rules thereof."
2. The order of rejection under Annexure-A/7, dated 2.7.2008 reads as under:
"In pursuance to the direction of the Hon'ble CAT vide order dated 17.9.2007, Smt. Monowara Bewa was advised under this office letter dated 11.10.2007 to come for a personal hearing. However, she did not attend. Further, she was again advised by letter dated 21.01.2008 to produce some documents to corroborate that her husband was serving as a Gangman and not as a Casual Gangman.
In response to this, Smt. Bewa attended this office on 12.6.2008 and on 25.6.2008 along with her Counsel. Be it mentioned that in the order dated 17.9.2007, Hon'ble.CAT was pleased to record that if so advised, the applicant may take.assistance.for hearing but not a<.Counsel. The applicant has, however, attended with1 her iCounsel which 1s not in conformity with the order. - - , . ' The applicant has submitted thaUherlate husband was a Gangman and not a Casual Gangman-a'tTKe time of death. In proof thereof, she has relied upon a Xerox copy bf Railway pass in which her late husband's designation was recorde'd*as Gangman.
At that point of time, it was informed that in other Railway documents, it is categorically recorded that her late husband was a Casual Gangman. To settle the matter, the old records regarding screening of Casual Gangman was obtained and it was seen that the Casual Gangman of that particular Unit were called for screening in the year 1989. The deceased Gangman died on 1985, Therefore, there was no scope to consider his claim in the year 1989. It can be concluded that no junior to him was regularised ignoring his claim.
Incidentally, in terms of the relevant provision of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, a Casual Labour who acquires temporary status, will not, however, be brought on to the permanent or regular establishment or treated as in regular employment on Railways until and unless they are selected through regular Selection Board. Therefore, the deceased Casual Gangman did not acquire regular status. Consequently, no Family Pension is admissible.
In view of the discussion above, there is no scope for considering Family Pension in favour of the applicant."
/ k 4 / 7 3. The Respondents filed their reply by citing the provisions of Rules and i / Railway Board's order in support of the grounds taken in the order of rejection under Annexure-A/7 dated 2.7.2008. In substance, it is the case of the * Respondents in their reply that the husband of the applicant was not a regular employee of the Railway. She died in 1985 while working in the railway as a casual Gangman i.e. before being screened for regularisation. Accordingly, it has been stated that as the husband of the applicant was not a regular employee, as per rules the applicant is not entitled, to pension or any pensionary dues and have prayed for dismissal of this OA.
4. The Applicant has filed rejoind.er reiterating more or less his stand taken in *V the OA. 6> \ 5. 7 /;C\\TJ/X ^ x \ \ Learned CounsehappearingJorthe/part'iesyhave reiterated the stand taken in their respective pleadings! and^havingSheardlthem 'at length perused the records. „ / / *
6. As per the Rules and'law, an employee >is entitled to pension and ^ ' / / pensionary benefits after retirement if .such-employee* was a regular employee working in pensionable establishment^and'obviously upon the death of such govt servant, his/her spouse is also entitled to family pension and other pensionary benefits. It is not the case of the applicant that her husband was a regular employee ncr he has produced any evidence that family pension.has been allowed to the widow after the death of her husband while working in railway on casual basis. There is no ambiguity in the pension rules of the railway to the above extent. I am fortified by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India and Ors, v. Rabia Bikaner and Ors., 1997 SCC (L&S;) 1524 :1998(1) SU 181 (SC), wherein it has been held that the widow of a casual labourer with L 5 temporary status but not yet appointed to a temporary post is not entitled to family pension. The relevant portion of the same is extracted as under:
"It is true that under para 2511 of the Railway Establishment Manual, casual labourers with temporary status are entitled to certain entitlements and privileges granted to temporary railway servants but this does not entitle them to family pension. Every casual labourer employed in railway administration for six months, is entitled to temporary status. They are then empanelled and thereafter, they are required to be screened by the competent authority. They are appointed in the order of merit as and when vacancies for temporary posts in the regular establishment are available. On their appointment, they are also required to put in minimum service of one year in the temporary post. If any of those employees who had put in the required minimum service of one year, that too after the i appointment to the temporary post, died while in service, his widow would be eligible for pension. In all these cases, though some of the deceased employees had been screened, yet appointments were not given to them since temporary posts were not available or in some cases they were not even eligible for screening because the posts became available after the death. Under these circumstances, the respondent widows are not eligible for family pension benefits. However, if any amounts have already been paid pursuant to the orders of the administrative Tribunal, the same may not be recovered from them.1'
7. In view of the above, I find justifiable reason to uphold the order of rejection denying the pension and pensionary benefits to the Applicant.
JK- --
/ j* 6 any merit and is accordingly dismissed. No / Accordingly, it is held that this OA sans r r- ' costs.
w f (A.K.Patnaik) Member (Judicial) («) 91. No. of th^6pp!n.
fb) Natpo of the sppfk»nt
(ci Ot. of prosenlatlon or 1*4**
appfiCGtten fc/r copy..,
(d) No. of pncjG?
(oj Copying foW cfiaJvO«8/
urgen: n: cr/jir.ary
alien of copy..
v (cicft/oK/.i,.v. .ry of tho copy
\ to the appti wou-
fN
r' y
<e) SI. No. of th^ gppln
fb) Naqye of the Bpmbant
(c) Dt. of presentation or #■.
appflcollcn for ppy....
(d) fto. of pafles./..... ■4
(e) Copying fee aiicucfis/
urgent o: or<f/aary......
(f) Dt. ,o;: ^'C'rition of copy.
(g) Dt. cl L-.,<dy of the copy
to tho applicant..............