Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Smt. Kamini Srivastava vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 7 June, 1999
JUDGMENT D.C. Verma, Member (J)
1. By this O.A. the applicant has claimed family pension w.e.f. 23.4.89 and the arrears of pay with interest at the rate of 12%.
2. The facts of the case are that the applicant's husband late Ram Gopal was employed as Substitute in the Loco Shed, Northern Railway, Faizabad on 1.6.1978. The applicant acquired temporary status w.e.f 30.6.79 with all benefits as admissible to the temporary railway servants. He became a member of Provident Fund and was allotted P.F. Account No. 545079/6 P/ 65582 by the respondent No. 3. A railway quarter was allotted to the applicant at Faizabad. The applicant was also declared medically fit in category A-1 by the railway doctor vide Memo No. 059147 dated 22.6.84. The particulars of late Ram Gopal as given by the then Loco Foreman vide his communication dated 15.6.89 is Annexure A-1. After attaining the temporary status, the applicant's husband drew salary in regular pay scale. In April, 89, the applicant's husband was working as Steam Man Khalasi. On the fateful day however, the applicant's husband drowned in a well near Loco Colony and expired. Late employee left behind the widow who is the applicant in the case, and two minor sons aged 5 and 3 years. A third son was born 4 months after death of the employee. The Provident Fund amount of Rs. 1842/- was paid to the applicant. The Leave encashment and gratuity was also paid to he applicant. However, the applicant was not paid the Group Insurance amount, nor was she given family pension. The applicant has been writing for the due amount but with no result.
3. The respondents, in their Short counter reply have not denied the service particulars contained in Annexure A-1 to the O.A. The respondent's case is that the applicant cannot get the relief on the basis of decision of the apex Court in the ease of Prabhavati Devi v. Union of India reported in 1996 S.C.C. (L and S) 369. The respondents have also referred to the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Rabia Bikaner decided by the Hon. Supreme Court on 7.7.97 (Annexure-1 to the short C.A.).
4. The only point for decision in the case is whether the applicant who is widow of late employee, is entitled to family pension. The applicant was appointed as Substitute Porter on 1.6.78 and died on 22.4.89. During this period, for about 11 years, the applicant had been working as Substitute Porter and was also given temporary status on 30.6.79. In the case of Prabhavati Devi (supra) the apex Court granted family pension as the husband of the applicant therein was working as substitute and had worked for more than one years as such. In the case of Rabia Bikaner (supra), the claim for family pension was by widow of a casual labour who had died after putting in six months service as casual labour. As the casual labour are absorbed against a regular temporary post, he was not covered under the scheme, and was not granted the family pension. Both these decisions i.e. Prabhavati Devi and Rabia Bikaner came up for consideration before Ernakulam Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in the case of M.G. Remani Bai v. Union of India and Ors., 1997 (36) A.T.C. 603. After discussing the facts of the case, the Ernakulam Bench held that the husband of the applicant therein was substitute and was working against the sanctioned post. The Ernakulam Bench rejected the respondents' submission that after the decision of the apex Court in the case of Rabia Bikaner, the dictum of the Apex Court in Prabhavati Devi case is no more a precedent to be followed. The relevant para is as below:
"The argument of the learned counsel of the respondents basing on the decision of the Supreme Court in Rabia Bikaner that the dictum of the Supreme Court in Prabhavati Devi case is no more a precedent to be followed, is only to be rejected. In Prabhavati Devi Case, the apex Court was considering the rights of a widow of a substitute who died before absorption on a regular post whereas in the case of Sukanti and Rabia Bikaner, what was considered was the cases of widows of casual labour who had attained temporary status but died before absorption on a post. There is a considerable difference between the rights and privileges that are due to a casual labourer who has attained temporary status and a substitute who has continuously worked for a period of one year. In case of a casual labourer with temporary status, on eventual absorption on a regular post, half the period of casual service after temporary status alone is to be ^ counted in computing the qualifying service for pension, whereas in the case of a substitute on regular absorption without break the entire service as substitute is to be reckoned as qualifying service for pension. The reason for this distinction is that a substitute is working against a regular sanctioned post, whereas the casual labourer is being engaged for casual work and not against any sanctioned post. In the judgment in Rabia Bikaner case, the distinction between the case of a substitute and a casual labourer has been very clearly discussed. The decision in Prabhavati Devi case was distinguished as that was a case of a widow of substitute claiming family pension in contradistinction to the applicant's husband who was a casual labourer in Rabia Bikaner case. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel that in view of the decision in Sukanti case and Rabia Bikaner case, the dictum in Prabhavati Devi case is no longer to be followed, has no force at all."
5. Giving the above finding, the Ernakulam Bench granted family pension.
6. The facts of the present case are also similar to the case of Remani Bai (supra). As the applicant's husband was also a substitute, and had been granted temporary status and died after serving about 11 years, the applicant is entitled for grant of family pension, as provided under para 801 of Manual of Pension Rules, 1950.
7. As regards the grant of Group Insurance, as per Annexure-1 i.e. the service particulars, provided by railways, recovery from the pay of late employee towards Group Insurance was made by the respondents at the rate of Rs. 10/- per month but was subsequently stopped. The applicant is, therefore, entitled to Group Insurance amount as may be calculated as per rules applicable.
8. The cause of action for the applicant arose in the year 1989 when the applicant's husband died, but the claim has been preferred in the year 1997. The amount of family pension acrues to a widow every month. So it is a continuing cause of action and the applicant is within her right for claim of family pension. As regards arrears, it is provided that though the applicant shall get arrears of family pension, but interest thereon shall not be payable to her.
9. In view of the above discussions, the O.A. is allowed as per directions given above. The amount of family pension calculated as per rules and the amount of Group Insurance shall be paid to the applicant within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order.
10. The O.A. is decided accordingly, Costs easy.