Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Smt Nand Kanwar vs M/O Railways on 24 September, 2025
1
OA No. 746/2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
...
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 746/2016
Order reserved on :18.08.2025
Date of order: 24.09.2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. RANJANA SHAHI, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE SHRI LOK RANJAN, MEMBER (A)
Smt. Nand Kanwar w/o Late Shri Kishan Singh, son of late Shri
Kalyan Singh, T.S. N.C. Talera under DRM Kota, aged about 47 years
(now 56 years), resident of House No. 186, Purohit Nagar, opposite
House Of Shri Ganga Ram Sarpanch, Kota, Rajasthan. Late Shri
Kishan Singh was working as Temp. status at Talra Rajasthan Bundi.
...Applicant
(By Adv: Shri Pradeep Asthana)
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager, Central West Railway,
Jabalpur, M.P.
2. Divisional Railway Manager, Central West Railway, Kota
Division, Kota,
3. Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, Central West Railway, Kota
Division, Kota.
...Respondents.
(By Adv: Shri Manish Kumar Sharma)
2
OA No. 746/2016
ORDER
Per :Hon'ble Shri Lok Ranjan, Member (A)
The Applicant in this Original Application is the wife of late Kishan Singh, a deceased casual worker with the Railways. The O.A. had been filedto claim the benefits purportedly due to thedeceased casual worker, who had been deemed to have worked continuously as Casual Labour from 01.10.1990 ; and had been granted temporary status (T.S.) as Casual Labour from 01.02.1991 vide order dated 23.09.2005. In particular, the Applicant was aggrieved that the benefits of family pension to her had not been considered pursuant to the Order dated 23.09.2005 for grant of T.S. as casual labour retrospectively for her deceased husband, since the same was made subject to the conditions mentioned therein - inter alia that the grant of T.S. shall not entitle him to be mergedinto Railway service unless screened as per approved process for appointment in order of the Selection List and/or for regular appointment in Railway service/post - which was not possible to be met since the said Order dated 23.09.2005 could only be communicated for her deceased husband posthumously, since he had expired earlier on 03.09.2005.
2. The matrix of relevant facts as had emerged from the pleadings of the parties was as follows, briefly. The Applicant's husband was statedly engaged as N.A.C. (the term N.A.C. was not explained) under the Respondent Department Railway for the first time on 26.04.1987. However, his case had been considered for grant of Temporary Status (T.S.) to Casual Labour in light of his having worked continuously for four months from 01.10.1990 to 31.01.1991 ; and he was accorded the T.S. accordingly w.e.f. 01.02.1991 - which was done vide the Order dated 23.09.2005. The terms and conditions incorporated in the said Order dated 23.09.2025 included that the grant of T.S. to the Casual Labourshall not entitle him to be merged into Railway Service until Screening was conducted as per prescribed procedure - either on the basis of his position in the Selection List for A.O. appointment (the term 3 OA No. 746/2016 A.O. was not explained), or for regular appointment in a post of Railway service.
3. In the case of the Applicant's husband, the said order dated 23.09.2005, for grant of T.S. from a retrospective date of 01.02.1991, had come after he had expiredon 03.09.2005. Nonetheless, vide Order dated 05.10.2005, the pay fixation for him was done at Basic Pay of Rs.750/- in the Pay Scale of Rs.(750-940)/- (R.P.) w.e.f. 01.02.1991. The Applicant had thereafter represented on 03.11.2005 and on 23.03.2006, to be granted family pension as well as other terminal benefits admissible in lieu of the service of her husband with the Respondent Department, Railway. A 'Notice for Demand of Justice' dated 05.08.2016 was also servedupon the Respondents on her behalf by her learned Counsel.
4. Eventually, the present O.A. No.746/2016 had been filed on 23.09.2016 by the Applicant due to non-response by the Respondents in respect of her grievances relating to grant of family pension to her in light of her husband's service with the Respondent Department, Railway as a Casual Labour with T.S. w.e.f. 01.02.1991 ; as well as other terminal benefits admissible to her upon the demise of her husband on 03.09.2005. Vide the same, the Applicant had prayed to be granted several substantive reliefs, inter alia - that the Respondents be directed to make payment of regular monthly family pension w.e.f. 05.09.2005 along with arrears and interest thereto @12% from the date it has become due ; that the Respondents be directed to grant correct fixation of pay and allowances to the deceased employee as admissible ; that the entire record of settlement of terminal benefits paid to the dependents of the deceased be called and the Respondents be directed for payment of remaining dues or balance of dues in view of the correct fixation of pay and allowances as prayed above ; and that the Respondents be directed to make payment of entire dues with 12% interest from the date those had become due.
4 OA No. 746/20165. It was noted at the outset, that the present O.A. dated 23.09.2016 had been considered and dismissed by this Tribunal vide Order dated 11.08.2022, the operative part of which stated that -
"7. We have not gone into examination of the rules/laws in relation to this matter, as there were examined in the cases cited above. It is not settled that there could be no claim for family pension by the dependent of a person who dies without being regularized in service, in spite of having been granted TS. An exception was made [in cases like Uchhav Kanwar (supra) and Mangi Bai (supra)] where the Hon'ble Court/Tribunal allowed grant of pension under circumstances where the deceased employee had already been screened for regularization. In the present cases, it is not even claimed by the Applicants that they were so screened or empanelled. As discussed in the above para, a number of recent decisions in this matter, which include a reasoned decision by a co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal [(Ram Kali's case (supra)], and also decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Jodhpur (in UOI & Ors Vs. Smt. Jubeda & Anr.) also support not granting family pension in cases like this. The Original Application are, thus, found devoid of merit, and therefore, are dismissed. No costs."
The Applicant had thereafter filed the Revision Application No. RA 17/2022, which also had been decided and dismissed by this Tribunal vide Order dated 11.10.2022, inter alia as follows -
"MA No.439/2022 in RA No.16/2022 and MA No.440/2022 in RA No.17/2022 have been filed for condonation of delay in filing the said RAs. These RAs are allowed for the reason mentioned therein and the delay is condoned.
2. These two Review Applications (RAs) have been filed by the Applicants for review of the order dated 11.08.2022 passed by this Tribunal in OA No.628/2017 and OA No.746/2016.
3. We have gone through these RAs. Our decision is based on earlier decisions of the Tribunal on the same matters. Hence, there is no need to further discuss the eligibility of the Applicants under the Rules, as this matter had already been dealt with in the decisions relied upon. There is, thus, no error apparent on the face of records. The RAs deserve to be dismissed.
4. The RAs are dismissed accordingly in circulation."
6. Thereafter, the Applicant had filed the D.B. C.W.P. No.17394/2022, which was considered and decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Benchvide Order dated 04.11.2024, as follows -
" 1. This petition is filed seeking quashing of order dated 11.08.2022 and 11.10.2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal') dismissing the original application (for brevity 'OA') and the review petition. 2. The brief facts are that the husband of the petitioner (for short 'deceased') joined the Railways Department on 26.04.1987 and after his death on 03.09.2005, the deceased was granted temporary status w.e.f. 01.02.1991 vide order dated 23.09.2005.
2. The petitioner claimed family pension and aggrieved of non-grant, approached the Tribunal by filing an OA. The Tribunal dismissed OA on the ground that the deceased had not undergone the screening and without regularization, family pension cannot be claimed.5 OA No. 746/2016
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Rule 18 (3) of the Railway Services (Pension), Rules 1993 (for short 'the Rules of 1993') to contend that even the family of the temporary railway servant is eligible for family pension and death gratuity on the same scale as admissible to permanent Railway servant under the Rules.
4. Learned counsel for the Respondents submits that the deceased was granted the temporary status subject to screening which could not be done as he expired prior to it.
5. From perusal of the impugned order, it is forthcoming that the Tribunal while dismissing the OA has not considered Rule 18 of the Rules of 1993. Without commenting on merits of issue, the impugned orders are set-aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to decide OA afresh in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties.
6. The writ petition is allowed."
7. Hence, the matter was taken up by this Tribunal for being decided afresh in accordance with law after providing opportunity for hearing to the parties pursuant to the Hon'ble High Court's Order dated 04.11.2024 9supra). While the Hon'ble High Court had specifically pointed out the need to consider Rule-18 of the Railway Service (Pension) Rules-1993, [RS(P) Rules-1993], the learned Counsel for the Applicant had sought to present at the stage of final hearing/arguments that the reference being made to Rule-1501 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (I.R.E.M.) by the administrative authority was an illegal, arbitrary and fabricated provision and had further sought to challenge its validity in the context of the present O.A. Accordingly, the M.A. No.151/2025 dated 15.04.2025 had also been filed by the Applicant, seeking to amend the present O.A. No.746/2016. Accordingly, the Applicant had prayed for the substantive reliefs inter alia as -
"(i)By appropriate order of direction Respondents may please be directed to make payment of regular monthly family pension w.e.f. 05.09.2005 along with interest thereto @12% from the (sic) it has become due.
(ii)By appropriate order or direction Respondents may be directed to grant correct fixation of pay as admissible on each anniversary of date of initial appointment.
(iii)By appropriate order or direction the Rule 1501 of the I.R.E.M. be declared illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law to the extent it it (sic) excludes the T.S. granted Casual labour to be considered as Temporary Railway Servant being violative of Art.14, 16, 21, 41 and 42 of the constitution of India.
(iv)By appropriate order or direction the Hon'ble Tribunal would call for the entire record of settlement of terminal dues of the deceased employee and would direct to make payment of P.F., Gratuity and leave encashment of the leaves due to the deceased employee along with interest at the rate admissible on delayed payment to the employees till the (sic) it is finally paid to the Applicant.
(v)By appropriate order or direction in view of employee having spent more than 14 yrs and 7 months as TS he be granted all such benefits which have 6 OA No. 746/2016 been granted to the employees junior to him on the date of grant of T.S."
...
8. It would emerge from the same that the Applicant had made multiple prayers for relief, as above. Several of these, viz. - that for grant of correct fixation of pay as admissible and increments on completion of one year/w.e.f. January 1st thereafter ; thatfor payment of P.F., Gratuity and Leave Encashment on account of leave due to the deceased employee ; and that for grant of all such benefits which have been granted to the employees junior to him on the date of grant of T.S.
- had pertained to benefits of pay etc. admissible in consequence of the service of the deceased employee, upon grant of temporary status as casual labour w.e.f. 01.02.1991 retrospectively.
The Applicant had stated that in pursuance of order dated 23.09.2005, the pay fixation of the deceased employee was made vide order dated 05.10.2005 w.e.f. 01.02.1991 in the pay scale of ₹750-940 (R.P.) at a basic pay of ₹750 as on 01.02.1991. It was claimed that the deceased employee's annual increments thereafter were not granted on due dates after completion of one year from the date of fixation, but from different dates purported selected arbitrarily by the Respondents - specifically citing the grant of his first annual grade increment w.e.f. 07.04.1992 instead of 01.02.1992 ; and the grant of his second annual grade increment w.e.f. 12.06.1993 instead of 01.02.1993. Also, his fixation on 01.01.1996 appeared to be incorrect, in view of erroneous fixation of pay before such date and also due to non-grant of annual grade increments on 01.01.1997 and w.e.f. every 1st January thereafter till his death.Further, the Applicant had contended that after grant of T.S., the deceased employee was eligible to get the terminal benefits of Gratuity and Leave Encashment, but the same had not been given to the Applicant despite several representations, reminders and finally a notice for demand of justice sent by the counsel of the Applicant on 05.08.2016. Moreover, the Applicant had contended that once a casual worker was granted T.S., he became entitled to be inducted as a member of the Provident Fund from that date. It was claimed that 7 OA No. 746/2016 though in the present case, the deceased employee was not alive on the date of being granted T.S. ; however, it was incumbent upon the Respondents to calculate the correct amount of employer's contribution towards P.F. and pay such amount to the dependents of the deceased on settlement of the terminal benefits with admissible interest.
9. In this regard, the Respondents had averred that the emoluments/payments admissible to the deceased employee, in accordance with him being a Casual Labour who had been granted T.S. w.e.f. 01.02.1991, had been paid to him/survivors - as per the factual status on record and in adherence to the statutory rules applicable for those benefits in the specific situation. Regarding the deferred dates of increment for the Years 1992 and 1993 as raised by the Applicant, the Respondents had averred that the deceased employee had not remained present during certain periods over time and the salary also was not given to him for those periods ; therefore, the annual grade increments had been granted for him from duly deferred dates and not arbitrarily.
Further, the Leave Encashment admissible to the deceased employee was calculated to be Rs. 19732/- which had been paid ; and the terminal gratuity amount of Rs.36589/- was found admissible to him ; but at the same time, an amount of Rs.1412/- towards final electricity charges bill and an amount of Rs.59102/- as Jaipur Credit Cooperative Bank loan were due to be recovered from him - and the final settlement in this regard had also been purportedly done accordingly, as per applicable provisions. However, the Provident Fund amount could not be sanctioned, since the order for grant of Temporary Status had been issued after the demise of the deceased employee, and therefore no deduction of Provident Fund had been ever made from his pay ; and for that reason, the question of refund of P.F. amount did not arise in his case, as per Rules applicable.
10. We observed thereby that from their very nature, the aforesaid reliefs prayed for had pertained to the payment of pay and allowances / 8 OA No. 746/2016 other benefits such as gratuity and leave encashment, which were prescribed to be admissible as per the statutory provisions in consequence of the death of any employee, inter alia aCasual Employeewith T.S. Such matters were squarely found to be in the domain of/to be decided upon by the administrative authorities - and it was a settled position that this Tribunal would not get into those unless any deviation from applicable provision or other patent illegality was found in those. The administrative authorities had presented the details of the various admissible benefits having been paid as per applicable facts and Rules. It was also observed - from the representations dated 03.11.2005 and dated 23.03.2006 as well as the Notice for Demand of Justice dated 05.08.2016 on behalf of the Applicant that were on record of the case - that the Applicant had not raised such grievances with the administrative authorities; but had sought to raise those directly vide the present O.A. before this Tribunal. The available administrative channel for redressal of her aforesaid grievances was not shown to be exhausted before approaching this Tribunal thus.
In the conspectus of all of the foregoing, we refrain from entering any further into the matters pertaining to pay and the terminal benefits as above-mentioned vide the present O.A.
11. Relevantly further, the remaining prayers of the Applicant - that for payment of regular monthly family pension w.e.f. 05.09.2005 along with interest thereto @12% ; and that for Rule-1501 of the I.R.E.M.to be declared illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law to the extent it excluded the T.S. granted Casual labour from being considered as Temporary Railway Servant as being violative of Articles - (14, 16, 21, 41 and 42 ) of the Constitution of India - had pertained to the admissibility of pension to a Casual Labour upon being granted Temporary Status. The claimof the Applicant through the pleadings and the arguments in the present case was that the grant of T.S. to the deceasedCasual Labour was tantamount to him becoming a temporary railway servant from the same date ; and thus eligible for parity in grant 9 OA No. 746/2016 of pension as such. It was also claimed that the deceased employee had to be deemed as having been regularized from the previous dateof regularization of his juniors as casual labour. For relief claimed as such, the Applicant had sought reliance on the statutory provisions and the precedent Court cases. Moreover, at the stage of final arguments, the Applicant had sought to file the M.A. No.151/2025 to challenge the validity of the Rule-1501 of I.R.E.M. which made a distinction between the temporary railway servant and the railway casual labour with temporary status.
12. Firstly, to examine the admissibility of pension to the deceased employee (Applicant's husband) as per statutory provisions - It was apposite to advert to the statutory provisions relating to the matter - inter alia relating to status of Casual Labour upon grant of Temporary status ; and the admissibility of pension thereupon. The provisions under these are extracted as hereafter - with emphasis provided to the portions thereof, as were shown to be relevant to the matter at hand.
The Chapter-XX of the I.R.E.M. Vol.-I that incorporated the matters related to 'Casual Labour' inter alia provide that -
"2001. (I) Definition of Casual labour - Casual labour refers to labour whose employment is intermittent, sporadic or extends over short period or continued from one work to another. Labour of this kind is normally recruited from the nearest available source. They are not ordinarily liable to transfer. The conditions applicable to permanent and temporary staff do not apply to casual labour.
... ...
Note (3):- Labour employed against regular sanctioned posts, which are vacant whether permanent or temporary shall not be employed on Casual labour terms. Casual labour should not be employed for work on construction of wagons and similar other work of a regular nature. Works of a regular nature. Cover workshops, loco sheds, train lighting establishments, carriage and wagon depots, yards and stations but exclude labour employed for loading and unloading. As regards civil engineering, signal and bridge maintenance, casual labour shall not be employed except for seasonal and fluctuating works, casual renewals and occasional renewals.
2002. Entitlements and privileges admissible to Casual Labour.--Casual Labour are not eligible for any entitlement and privileges other than those statutorily admissible under the various Acts, such as. Minimum Wage Act, Workmen's Compensation Act, etc. or those specifically sanctioned by the Railway Board from time to time.10 OA No. 746/2016
......
2005. Entitlements and Privileges admissible to Casual Labour who are treated as temporary (i.e. given temporary status) after the completion of 120 day or 360 days of continuous employment (as the case may be).--
(a) Casual labour treated as temporary are entitled to the rights and benefits admissible to temporary railway servants as laid down in 'Chapter XXIII of this Manual. The rights and privileges admissible to such labour also include the benefit of D&A Rules. However, their service prior to absorption in tempo-
rary/permanent/regular cadre after the required selection/ screening will not count for the purpose of seniority and the date of their regular appointment after screening/selection shall determine their seniority vis-a-vis other regular/temporary employees. This is however, subject to the provision that if the seniority of certain individual employees has already been determined in any other manner, either in pursuance of judicial decisions or otherwise, the seniority so determined shall not be altered.
Casual labour including Project casual labour shall be eligible to count only half the period of service rendered by them after attaining temporary status on completion of prescribed days of continuous employment and before regular absorption, as qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefits. This benefit will be admissible only after their absorption in regular employment. Such casual labour, who have attained temporary status, will also be entitled to carry forward the leave at their credit to new post on absor- ption in regular service. Daily rated casual labour will not be entitled to these benefits.
(b) Such casual labour who acquire 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 for Group D Posts in the manner laid down from time to time. Subject to such orders as the Railway Board may issue from time to time, and subject to such exceptions and conditions like appointment on compassionate ground, quotas for handicapped and ex-serviceman etc. as may be specified in these orders they will have a prior claim over others to recruitment on a regular basis and they will be considered for regular employment without having to go through employment exchanges. Such of them who join as Casual labour before attaining the age of 28 years should be allowed relaxation of the maximum age limit prescribed for group 'D' posts to the extent of their total service which may be either continuous or in broken periods.
(c) No temporary posts shall be created to accommodate such casual labour, who acquire temporary status, for the conferment of attendant benefits like regular scale of pay, increment etc. After absorption in regular employment, half of the service rendered after attaining temporary status by such persons before regular absorption against a regular/ temporary/ permanent post, will qualify for pensionary benefits, subject to the conditions prescribed in Railway Board's letter No. E(NG)II/78/CL/12 dated 14-10-80. (Letter No. E(NG) II/85/CL/6 dated 28-11-86 in the case of Project casual labour).
(d) Casual labour who have acquired temporary status and have put in three years continuous service should be treated at par with temporary railway servants for purpose of festival advance/Flood Advance on the same conditions as are applicable to temporary railway servants for grant of such advance provided they furnish two sureties from permanent railway employees.
11 OA No. 746/2016(e) Casual labour engaged on works, who attain temporary status on completion of 120 days continuous employment on the same type of work, should be treated as temporary employees for the purpose of hospital leave in terms of Rule 554-R-I (1985 Edition).
A casual labour who has attained temporary status and has been paid regular scale of pay, when re-engaged, after having been discharged earlier on completion of work or for non-availability of further productive work, may be started on the pay last down by him. (This shall be effective from 2nd October 1980).
2006. Absorption of Casual Labour in regular vacancies. -- Absorption of casual labour in regular Group 'D' employment may be considered in 'accordance with instructions issued by the Railway Board from time to time. Such absorption is, however, not automatic but is subject, inter-alia, to availability of vacancies and suitability and eligibility of individual casual labour and rules regarding seniority unit method of absorption etc. decided by the Railway Administration.
......
2007. ... ... (4) (a) Casual labour should be subjected to medical examination as early as possible and preferably before grant of temporary status. Continued retention in employment is subject to qualifying in the prescribed medical examination. When casual labour who have put in six years' service, whether continuous or in broken periods, are included in a panel for appoint- ment to Group D posts and are sent for medical examination for first appointment to regular service, the standard of medical examination should not be the one that is required for first appointment but should be the appropriate standard as prescribed for re-examination during service."
Moreover, the Rule-1501 of the I.R.E.M. provided for who would be deemed as a temporary Railway servant - as follows -
1501. (i) Temporary Railway Servants Definition--A "temporary railway servant" means a railway servant without a lien on a permanent post on a Railway or any other administration or office under the Railway Board. The term does not include "casual labour", including 'casual labour with temporary status', a "contract" or "part-time" employee or an "apprentice".
13. The Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993 [the RS(P) Rules-1993] that incorporate matters related to 'Pension' for Railway Servants, inter alia provide that -
"14. Periods which shall not be treated as service for pensionary benefits-Periods of employment in any of the following capacities shall not constitute service for pensionary benefits, namely-
(i) in a part-time capacity;
(ii) at casual market or daily rates;
(iii) in a non-pensionable post;
(iv) in a post paid from contingencies except as provided in rule 31;
(v) under a covenant or a contract which does not specifically provide for grant of pensionary benefits;
(vi) work done on payment of a fee or honorarium;
(vii) Apprentice period of Special Class Apprentices 12 OA No. 746/2016 (Authority: Railway Board's letter No. F(E)III/99/PN 1/(Modification) dated 23.5.2000) ......
18. Pensionary, terminal or death benefits to temporary railway servant. -
(1) A temporary railway servant who retires on superannuation or on being declared permanently incapacitated for further railway service by the appropriate medical authority after having rendered temporary service not less than ten years shall be eligible for grant of superannuation, invalid pension, retirement gratuity and family pension at the same scale as admissible to permanent railway servant under these rules.
Explanation: For the purpose of sub-rule (1) of this rule "service" shall have the meaning assigned to it in sub-rule (6) of rule 1002 of the Code except that it shall not include the period of first four years of apprenticeship of Special Class Railway Apprenticeship.
(2) A temporary railway servant who seeks voluntary retirement after completion of twenty years of service shall continue to be eligible for retirementpension and other pensionary benefits like retirement gratuity and family pension as admissible under these rules.
(3) In the event of death in harness of a temporary railway servant his family shall be eligible to family pension and death gratuity on the same scale as admissible to families to permanent railway servants under these rules. (4) The terminal or death gratuity shall not be admissible -
(i) to a probationer or other railway servant discharged for failure to pass the prescribed test or other examination;
(ii) in a case where the railway servant concerned resigns his post or is removed or dismissed from railway service;
(iii) to employees re-employed under the terms of re-employment applicable to retired employees.
20. Commencement of qualifying service- Subject to the provisions of these rules, qualifying service of a railway servant shall commence from the date he takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity: Provided that officiating or temporary service is followed, without interruption, by substantive appointment in the same or another service or post:
31. Counting of service paid from Contingencies- In respect of a railway servant, in service on or after the 22nd day of August, 1968, half the service paid from contingencies benefits on absorption in regular employment, subject to the following condition namely: -
(a) the service paid from contingencies has been in a job involving whole- time employment;
(b) the service paid from contingencies should be in a type of work or job for which regular posts could have been sanctioned such as posts of malis, chowkidars and khalasis;
(c) the service should have been such for which payment has been made either on monthly rate basis or on daily rates computed and paid on a monthly basis and which, though no analogous to the regular scales of pay, borne some relation in the matter of pay to those being paid for similar jobs being performed at the relevant period by staff in regular establishments;
(d) the service paid from contingencies has been continuous and followed by absorption in regular employment without a break;
Provided that the weightage for past service paid from contingencies shall be limited to the period after 1st January 1961 subject to the condition that authentic records of service such as pay bill, leave record or service- book is available.
13 OA No. 746/2016NOTE - (1) the provisions of this rule shall also apply to casual labour paid from contingencies.
(2) The expression "absorption in regular employment" means absorption against a regular post.
14. It would emerge clearly from a reference to the relevant provisions of I.R.E.M., inter alia, Para-1501 - which provided that a "temporary railway servant" means a railway servant without a lien on a permanent post on a Railway or any other administration or office under the Railway Board. The term does not include "casual labour", including 'casual labour with temporary status', a "contract" or "part-time" employee or an "apprentice" ; Para-2006 (b) (supra), which inter alia provided that -
"Such casual labour who acquire 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 for Group D Posts in the manner laid down from time to time." ; and I.R.E.M. Rule-2007 (supra), which inter alia provided that - "Such absorption is, however, not automatic but is subject, inter-alia, to availability of vacancies and suitability and eligibility of individual casual labour and rules regarding seniority unit method of absorption etc. decided by the Railway Administration."
Consequently, the claim made by the Applicant- that a casual labour granted Temporary Status, had to be deemed as a Temporary Railway servant from the date of such grant of T.S. ; following whichthe deceased employee was entitled to all service benefits,inter alia the pension, from 01.02.1991 ; and the Applicantalso was entitled to family pension from 03.09.2005 i.e. the date of death of the deceased employee- was not found to be borne out or admissible on the basis of the extant service- related statutory provisions, inter alia those under the I.R.E.M.
15. Further, the other claim of the Applicant was that the pension related RS(P) Rules-1993 would entitle the deceased employee to pension ; and to family pension for her - for which specific reference had been made to Rule-18(3) thereof. The careful perusal of the RS(P) 14 OA No. 746/2016 Rule-1993 would inter alia show the provisions relevant for the present O.A. to be that -
The Rule-14 thereof (supra) was found to clearly provide for 'Periods which shall not be treated as service for pensionary benefits' and had inter alia specified vide clause-(iv) thereof thatPeriods of employment in a postpaid from contingencies except as provided in Rule-31, as one such period that shall not constitute service for pensionary benefits. Specifically, regarding the rule sought to be relied upon by the Applicant, viz. Rule-18 thereof (supra), it clearly emerged that the same had incorporated 'Pensionary, terminal or death benefits to temporary railway servant'. Thus, the same cannot be applicable for the case of the Applicant, who was still a Casual Labour with temporary status and not a temporary railway servant.Further, the same would become even clearer from the RS(P) Rules-1993 at Rule-20 thereof (supra) regarding 'Commencement of qualifying service', which had provided inter alia for qualifying service to be counted for the pension, stating that - "... qualifying service of a railway servant shall commence from the date he takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity: Provided that officiating or temporary service is followed, without interruption, by substantive appointment in the same or another service or post."Moreover, the RS(P) Rules-1993 at Rule-31 thereof (supra), had specifically incorporated the provisions relating to pension etc. for a railway servant for 'Counting of service paid from Contingencies'; and the same had provided that the qualifying service were to be reckoned- "... on absorption in regular employmentif the service paid from contingencies has been continuous and followed by absorption in regular employment without a break ; and it had further been made clear through the Note-1 and Note-2 thereunder , viz. - "(1) the provisions of this rule shall also apply to casual labour paid from contingencies. (2) The expression "absorption in regular employment" means absorption against a regular post."
15 OA No. 746/2016It was also apposite to advert to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observations in their Judgment and Order dated 12.12.2007 in Civil Appeal No.5833/2007 in General Manager, North Western Railway & Ors. Vs. Chanda Devi [2008 (2) SCC 108], inter alia regarding the applicability of the RS(P) Rules-1993 in the context of the case filed by the widow of Ram Niwas, a deceased project casual labour, as -
"9. We, before embarking upon the rival contentions of the learned counsel for both the parties, intend to place on record that the provisions of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules have no application in the instant case. The said Pension Rules came into force from 2.12.1993. Rule 2 of the Rules provides for application thereof only in respect of the following category of candidates :
2. Application Save as otherwise expressly provided in these rules, these rules shall apply to the following railway servants, namely :-
(1) any Group D railway servant whose service was pensionable before the introduction of Pension System for Railway Servants on the 16th day of November, 1957;
(2) any non-pensionable railway servants who was in service on the 16th day of November, 1957 and who elected to be governed by these rules, (3) any non-pensionable railway servant who was in service on the 1st day of January, 1986 and did not opt to be governed by the State Railway Provident Fund (Contributory) Rules; and (4) any person entering a railway service on or after the 16th November, 1957, except a person who is appointed on contract or re-employed after superannuation or whose terms of appointment specifically provide to the contrary.
10. A bare perusal of the aforementioned provisions would clearly go to show that the statutory rules for grant of pension made in view of the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India cannot be said to have any application in the instant case."
16. Therefore, from the relevant provisions of RS(P) Rules-1993, inter alia at Rule-18(3) thereof that was sought to be relied upon by the Applicant, it had emerged that the pensionary, terminal or death benefits were admissible to temporary railway servant as per the applicable provisions ; but the same were not applicable in respect of service period in a post paid from contingencies, unless the absorption of the employee in regular employment - which also would be subject to the service paid from contingencies having been continuous and followed by absorption in regular employment without a break. In the deceased employee's case vide the present O.A., such absorption in regular employment was admittedly not feasible as per the prescribed procedure, since by the time grant of T.S. itself was made on 16 OA No. 746/2016 23.09.2005 retrospectively w.e.f. 01.02.1991, he had already expired on 03.09.2005.
17. Secondly, to examine the admissibility of pension to the deceased employee (Applicant's husband) as per precedent Court cases - TheApplicant had claimed that in as far as grant of pension/family pension was concerned, the services of Casual Labour with T.S. were to be reckoned the same as service as temporary railway servant absorbed in a regular post. In support, the decisions of this Tribunal - in the case of Smt. Uchhav Kanwar, decided vide Order dated 17.11.2005 in O.A. No.35 of 2005 ; and of Smt. Mangi Bai, decided vide Order dated 20.01.2015 in O.A. No.582 of 2005- had been presented, which were taken on record. It was further submitted that the case of Uchhav Kanwar was even upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and had attained finality ; and the case of the present Applicantwas squarely covered by these cases.
Orders of this Tribunal in the cases of Smt. Ucchav Kanwar and Smt. Mangi Bai aforesaid, as were placed before us had also been examined. In the case of Smt. Ucchav Kanwar, this Tribunal had while deciding the case vide Order dated 17.11.2005 (supra), noted the relevant facts therein, inter alia - that her husband was initially appointed on 25.09.1986 and was granted T.S. On 26.09.1987 ; that he was thereafter medically examined on 25.12.1987 and found fit in such medical examination ; and that however, he had expired on 06.07.1997, whereas the order dated 04.09.1997 (i.e. after his death) was issued by the Respondents for his regularization along with other casual labourers. In those circumstances, this Tribunal concluded that -
"... in this case also I find that the Applicant had worked in the railways since 1986 on casual basis and his juniors had also been regularized along with him so his family cannot be denied family pension. Moreover, I find that the Applicant's husband in this case had been medically examined by the Divisional Medical Officer, Chittorgarh and was found fit, vide medical certificate dated 25.12.1987 which fact stands admitted by the Respondents in their reply. Had the Applicant not been medically examined earlier, one could have understood the logic behind insisting upon requirement of medical examination. Thus, the claim of the Applicant has to be allowed. It is accordingly allowed."17 OA No. 746/2016
Further, this Tribunal had while deciding the case of Smt. Mangi Bai vide Order dated 20.01.2015 (supra),noted the relevant facts therein inter alia - that her husband was initially appointed as substitute khallasi on 16.04.1983 and was granted T.S. on 26.09.1987 ; that he was screened for appointment vide screening held on 17.08.1985 and 16.01.1986 and medically examined on 25.12.1987 ; and that he was assigned seniority at serial No.35 in the seniority List published for recruitment of Class-IV services vide D.R.M. letter dated 12.02.1986 and the final seniority list dated 07.06.1989. However, he had expired on 06.08.1986 whereas he was approved for regularization vide letter dated 12.02.1986 that is much prior to his death. This Tribunal had also noted that the case of Chanda Devi [2008 (2) SCC 108] was decided vide Order dated 12.12.2007 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was prior to the date of dismissal (27.08.2010) of the S.L.P. filed by the Union of India & Ors. in the case of Smt. Ucchav Kanwar. Hence, this Tribunal concluded that
-
" 25. I am inclined to agree with the arguments of the learned counsel for the Applicant that the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chanda Devi (supra) would not be applicable under the facts & circumstances of the present OA because in the case of Chanda Devi, Shri Ram Niwas (husband of Smt. Chanda Devi) expiredon 29.12.1988 and his order of regularization was passed sometime in the year 1999 after 11 years of his death whereas in the present OA, the husband of the Applicant was screened for regular appointment before his death and, therefore, the ratio decided in Smt. Ucchav Kanwar vs. Union of India & Others (OA No. 35/2005 decided on 17.11.2005) would be applicable under the facts & circumstances of the present case. Moreover, the order passed by the Tribunal in Smt. Ucchav Kanwar has attained finality because the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP filed by the Union of India & Others vide order dated 27.08.2010.
26. Since the ratio decided in Smt. Ucchav Kanwar vs. Union of India (supra) is be applicable under the facts & circumstances of the present OA, hence the Applicant is entitled for family pension. The Respondents are directed to sanction and release family pension to the Applicant from the due date in accordance with the rules expeditiously but in any case not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ..."
18. From the examination of the aforesaid Orders of this Tribunal in the cases of Smt. Ucchav Kanwar and Smt. Mangi Bai aforesaid, as were placed before us, it was found that this Tribunal did not hold that the Casual Labour (T.S.) and temporary railway servant against a railway 18 OA No. 746/2016 post were equal/same per se for pensionary purposes ; per contra, the difference of those services was recognized through the need for the prescribed screening process and medical examination. This Tribunal had noted in each of the aforesaid cases that the medical examination/screening had been undertaken by the railway authorities whereby they had been assessed to be fit and were awaiting regularization duly - during which period they had expired. It had thus been ordered to extend family pension to their family/widow. Per contra, in the case of the deceased employee vide the present O.A., the husband of the Applicant could not be screened for regular appointment before his death, so he had not been assessed as fit for regularization at the time of his death. Hence, the case of the Applicant was not found to be similar to or squarely covered by the cases presented as aforesaid, which thus were not of help to the Applicant.
19. In this regard, the learned Counsel for the Respondents had submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Chanda Devi case [2008 (2) SCC 108] (supra), had examined the very issue of admissibility or otherwise of family pension in cases of railway casual labour with T.S., who could not undergo medical examination/screening for regularization in railway service but had unfortunately died ; arising out of judgments of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench dated 25.4.2005 in DB Civil W.P. No. 5317 of 2004 and dated 25.4.2005 in D.B. Civil WP No. 5316 of 2004 affirming orders dated 12.4.2004 in O.A. No. 536/2003 and dated 7.4.2003 in O.A. No. 233/2003 respectively. Vide the Judgment and Order dated 12.12.2007, Hon'ble Supreme Court had decided inter alia that -
"27. What was protected by conferring temporary status upon a casual employee was his service and by reason thereof the pension rules were not made applicable. A workman had not been and could not have been given a status to which he was not entitled to.
28. Recruitment of Government Employees must be made strictly in terms of the statutory rules. Entitlements of the employees being governed by statute or statutory rules, the question of attribution of any malice in our opinion by the Gujarat High Court was clearly erroneous.
29. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly." ... ...19 OA No. 746/2016
Thereby, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the impugned judgments of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench dated 25.04.2005 in DB Civil W.P. No.5317 of 2004 and dated 25.04.2005 in D.B. Civil WP No.5316 of 2004, for grant of family pension to the family/widow of railway casual labour with T.S., who could not undergo medical examination/screening for regularization in railway service but had unfortunately died before that - by relying upon the Judgment and Order dated 01.05.2005 of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Rukhiben Rupabai vs Union of India [(2005) 3 GLR 2378] - cannot be sustained ; and had set those aside accordingly. Hence, the issue raised by the Applicant as such was no more res integra.
20. The learned Counsel for Respondents had further submitted that the law laid down as such by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was also relied upon in the Judgments of Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur -
that dated 21.02.2017 in D.B. C.W.P. No. 915/2002 and dated 11.04.2017 in D.B. C.W.P. No. 1732/2007 - which were presented and taken on record.
It was shown that vide the Judgment dated 21.02.2017 of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 915/2002 (Smt. Kamla Vs. Union of India & Ors.), it had been held, inter alia that -
"This petition for writ is preferred to question correctness of the Order dated 18.02.2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in Original Application No.40/99 (Smt. Kamla Vs. Union of India & Ors). The Tribunal by the order impugned rejected the claim of the petitioner to have family pension being a widow of temporary status casual labour.
It is pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant that Hon'ble Supreme Court in Appeal (Civil) No.5833/2007 (General Manager, North Western Railway & Ors. Vs. Chanda Devi) has taken a view that the Temporary Status casual labour are not entitled to receive pension and as such no family pension too can be granted.
In view of the judgment aforesaid, nothing survives in this petition for writ. Accordingly, the same is dismissed."
Further, it had also been shown vide the Judgment dated 11.04.2017 of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Civil Writ 20 OA No. 746/2016 Petition No. 1732/2007 (Union of India & Ors. Vs. Smt.Jubeda and Anr.) it had been held inter alia that -
"1. The issue raised in the instant writ petition has been decided by the Supreme Court in the decision reported as 2008 (2) SCC 108; General Manager, North Western Railway & Ors. Vs. Chanda Devi. The decision holds that Casual Labour with temporary status would not be entitled to pension and as a consequence no family pension would be payable to the widow. It is only where a Casual Labour having acquired temporary status is regularized in service, pension has to be disbursed and qualifying service would be determined by taking half the period rendered as an employee with a temporary status and full period after being made permanent.
2. In the instant case husband of the Respondent acquired temporary status and unfortunately died before entitlement to be made regular/permanent would have ensued. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned judgment dated October 11, 2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur is set aside. The Original Application No.53/2006 filed by the Respondent is dismissed."
21. Importantly therefore, it emerged on the basis of such perusal that the non-admissibility of family pension in case of railway casual labour with T.S., who could not undergo medical examination/screening for regularization in railway service but had unfortunately died before that, was no more res integra, as the same had been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide the Judgment and Order dated 12.12.2007 in Chanda Devi case [2008 (2) SCC 108] (supra). The same had also been followed/relied upon subsequently in the Judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur - that dated 21.02.2017 in D.B. C.W.P. No.915/2002 and that dated 11.04.2017 in D.B. C.W.P. No.1732/2007.
22. Thirdly, to examine the admissibility of pension to the deceased employee (Applicant's husband) due to purported non-validity of the I.R.E.M. Rule-1501- the Applicant had vide the M.A. No.151/2025 dated 15.04.2025 sought to challenge the validity itself of the provisions of the I.R.E.M. Rule-1501 (supra) whereby the term temporary railway servant had been defined - specifically of the clause therein that "the term does not include "casual labour" including casual labour with temporary status, a contract or part-time employee or an apprentice." It had been purported that the inclusion of the said clause was tantamount to an illegal alteration/unauthorized interpretation of the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Inder Pal Yadav v/s Union of India in 21 OA No. 746/2016 the Hon'ble Apex Court [(1985)2 SCC 108] - wherein the original definition of Temporary Railway Servant was clear and that did not exclude T.S. granted Casual Labour out of the array of Temporary Railway Servant. Further, it had been contended that the railway employees were to belong to one of the four categories - namely, (1) Permanent, (2) Temporary, (3) Casual labour and (4) Substitutes. Thus, no other category of employee as Casual (T.S.) can be created, which would be artificial and unauthorized interpretation by Administrative Order in a rule framed under the provision of Art.309 of Constitution of India. Therefore, the purported superimposition of clause to exclude T.S. granted casual employees from the array of Temporary Railway Servant, vide Rule-1501 of I.R.E.M. was claimed to be violative of the fundamental guarantees granted to employees under Art. 14,16, 21, 41 and 42 of the Constitution of India ; and thus, was not sustainable in the eyes of law - so the Rule 1501 of I.R.E.M. deserved to be declared illegal and to be quashed and set aside.
23. In this regard, a perusal of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's Judgment and Order dated 12.12.2007 in Chanda Devi case [2008 (2) SCC 108] (supra), would bring out that issues identical to those sought to be raised by the Applicantby submitting the M.A. No.151/2025 had been decided at first in the Judgment and Order dated 01.05.2005 of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Rukhiben Rupabai vs Union of India [(2005) 3 GLR 2378]. The M.A. No. 151/2021 sought to be filed by the Applicant was seeking to raise the very same issues with the very same logic/grounds and even in wordings that were identical/reproduced verbatim from the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat judgment and order dated 01.05.2005 (supra). These had pertained, inter alia to- that the definition of temporary railway servant so as to exclude the casual labour with temporary status was in breach of the Hon'ble Apex Court's decisions in Inder Pal Yadav case ; that the existence of only four categories of railway employees, namely (1) permanent, (2) temporary (3) casual labour and (4) substitutes/casual labour, implied that the casual labour upon being granted T.S. would become temporary railway 22 OA No. 746/2016 servant ; and that the Circular dated 11.09.1986 brought in by Railway which had provided for the "Terms of Employment of Project Casual Labour," was contrary to original scheme and as such, hit by Articles 14, 16, 21, 41/42 of the Constitution of India.
However, upon taking note of those, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Chanda Devi case [2008 (2) SCC 108] (supra),inter alia held that -
"22. The decision of the Gujarat High Court relied upon by the Tribunal as also the Division Bench, in our opinion, may not be correct. It was held therein that as temporary servant also is entitled to pension on his attaining the age of superannuation, the purported amendment in the Railway Manual to the effect that they would enjoy the status of temporary employee is bad in law.
23. The Gujarat High Court in Rukhiben Rupabhai (supra), no doubt on analyzing the scheme filed before this Court, opined :
32. This change has been made by Railways after the Apex Court decision in Inder Pal Yadav case (supra). The original definition `temporary railway servant' is clear, but in the above quoted definition in Clause (1501), Railways have included the `casual labour with temporary status', thereby, taking them out from the category of "temporary railway servant". How and why this change has been made, what procedures were adopted for making the change, there is no whisper, although, this change has grievously affected the casual labour becoming temporary on completion of 360 days continuous employment, and committed breach of the Apex Court's decisions in Inder Pal Yadav case (supra) followed by Dakshin Railway Employees case (supra), making casual labour `temporary railway servant'. Since there exists only four categories, namely, (1) permanent, (2) temporary (3) casual labour and (4) substitutes, casual labour, under the original scheme approved in cases referred to hereinbefore, becomes `temporary railway servant', after completion of 360 days' continuous employment, therefore, he cannot be made `casual labour with temporary status' by subsequent gerrymandering by the Railways by its Circular dated 11th September 1986, which was not brought to the notice of the Apex Court in Dakshin Railway Employees case (supra). Therefore, this Circular has no legal sanction, against the Apex Court decisions in Inder Pal Yadav case (supra), contrary to original scheme and as such, hit by Articles 14, 16, 21, 41/42 of the Constitution of India.;
but evidently the provisions of the Railway manual were not considered in their proper perspective.
What has been considered therein was that the Railway Manual should be given effect to as it governs the terms and conditions of service of the employees working under the Railway Administration. A scheme when engrafted in a rule must be read in the context in which the same was done. This Court while accepting the scheme, nowhere suggested that the amendments made in the Railway Manual would be of no effect. Even otherwise the same could not have been done.
24. In absence of any statutory rules framed, executive instructions can be issued in relation to the matter governed by the constitutional provisions. In Khem Chand (supra), this Court had noticed the relevant constitutional provisions and opined that the Railway Manual was an amalgam of various circulars issued from time to time. Such executive instructions or rules framed would be statutory in nature.
23 OA No. 746/201625. Mala fide cannot be attributed to a legislation. It is only its validity, that can be challenged. In these cases, validity of the Rules was not under challenge.
26. The Gujarat High Court in our opinion therefore, committed a fundamental error in opining otherwise. It failed to notice that when casual labour has been excluded from the definition of permanent or temporary employee, he with temporary status could not have become so and there is no legal sanction therefor. It is for the legislature to put the employees to an establishment in different categories. It may create a new category to confer certain benefits to a particular class of employees. Such a power can be exercised also by the Executive for making rules under the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Dakshin Railway Employees Union, Trivandrum Division Vs. General manager, Southern Railway and Others [(1987) 1 SCC 677] whereupon reliance has been placed by the Gujarat High Court in Rukhiben Rupabhai (supra) does not lead to the said conclusion as was sought to be inferred by it. The question therein was as to whether any direction was to be issued to include the petitioners therein in the scheme for absorption as formulated pursuant to the directions of the Court.
27. What was protected by conferring temporary status upon a casual employee was his service and by reason thereof the pension rules were not made applicable. A workman had not been and could not have been given a status to which he was not entitled to.
28. Recruitment of Government Employees must be made strictly in terms of the statutory rules. Entitlements of the employees being governed by statute or statutory rules, the question of attribution of any malice in our opinion by the Gujarat High Court was clearly erroneous.
29. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly." ... ...
24. Relevantly further, the decision dated 01.05.2005 of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rukhiben Rupabhai vs Union of India as referred to in the aforementioned Judgment and Order had itself been appealed against by the Union of India. Vide Judgment and Order dated 21.07.2011 in that Appeal, i.e. afterthe Chanda Devi case as well, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had overruled the said judgment dated 01.05.2005 of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and held that a widow of a casual labour with temporary status was not entitled to family pension. It had also been observed that the scheme formulated by the railway administration had been accepted by the Supreme Court in the Inderpal Yadav case and it was nowhere suggested that the amendments made accordingly in the Railway Manual would have no effect. Further, it was also held that the Railway Manual which was an amalgam of various circulars issued from time to time would be statutory in nature and it is for the legislature to put the employees in an establishment in different 24 OA No. 746/2016 categories and such a power can be exercised also by the executive for making rules. In conclusion the Hon'ble Supreme Court had affirmed that the recruitment of Government employees must be made strictly in terms of the statutory rules and it was thus manifest that the decision dated 01.05.2005 of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court - that already stood overruled in Chanda Devi case (supra) also - was clearly erroneous.
However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had further clarified that it will be open to the Respondent employee, if so advised, to challenge the validity of the amendment carried out in I.R.E.M.-1501 in terms of circular dated 11.09.1986. If such a challenge was laid within three months from date, the appropriate forum shall examine the issue on merits, and shall not non-suit the party concerned on the ground of delay.At the stage of the filing of the O.A.s for challenging the validity of Rule-1501 occurring in Chapter XV of the I.R.E.M. Vol. I (Revised Edition 1989), the Hon'ble Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal had noted that the Hon'ble Apex Court had fixed a specific time limit of three months from the date of its order dated 21.07.2011, for bringing in quietus to the matter in view of the long drawn history of litigations involved ; and that such time limit shall be binding on all the courts within the territory of India who were disempowered to condone or relax the time limit set by the Hon'ble Apex Court ; and any delay in filing of proceedings had to be condoned only by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the above circumstances, the Hon'ble Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal had rejected the related O.A.s since those had been filed beyond the time-limit fixed by the Hon'ble Apex Court obviously with the intent of bringing quietus to the forensic forays.
25. It thus emerged that not only had the Hon'ble Supreme Court overturned the decision in the Rukhiben Rupabhai case decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, the opportunity afforded for challenging the validity of the related rules, inter alia the Rule-1501 of the I.R.E.M.had also not been availed of in due time. The matter had therefore stood settled by attaining quietus.However, by filing the M.A. 25 OA No. 746/2016 No.151/2025 in the present O.A., the Applicant had sought to re-open the same matter after more than 14 years from 21.07.2011, i.e. the date of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowing for such a challenge to be filed within three months. As had already been held by the Hon'ble Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal, the said time limit of three months was binding, and no Court/Tribunal was empowered to relax or condone the delay in the same. Hence the matter stood finally settled ; and we do not find that the Applicant was entitled to disturb the quietus attained after prolonged and numerous litigation that had eventually been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
26. The learned Counsel for the Respondents had in the related arguments submitted that the issues raised - apart from being settled vide the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment and Order dated 12.12.2007 in the case of Chanda Devi [2008 (2) SCC 108](supra) and that dated 21.07.2011 in the Appeal case of Rukhiben Rupabhai (supra) - had again come to be reiterated vide the Order and Judgment dated 24.03.2017 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.3938 in the case of Rakesh Kumar vs Union of India [(2017) 13 SCC 388] regarding the counting on regularization of service , in respect of periods served as casual labour, casual labour with T.S. and temporary railway servant etc. for pensionary purposes. The Hon'ble Apex Court had also considered the various related statutory provisions - viz. the Para-20 of the Master Circular No.54, Para-2005 as well as the Rule-1501 of the I.R.E.M., RS(P) Rules-1993 etc. ; and also examined the important previous Court cases - viz. General Manager South Central Railway Secunderabad & Anr vs Sheikh Abdul Khadir [(2004) 1 SLR 2014] of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court ; General Manager North Western Railway & Ors. Vs Chanda Devi [(2008) 2 SCC 108] of Hon'ble Supreme Court ; General Manager South Central Railway & Anr vs A. Ramanamma[W.P.(C) 10838/2001 decided on 01.05.2009] of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court ; Inderpal Yadav vs Union of India [(1985) 2 SCC 648] of Hon'ble Supreme Court ; Rukhiben Rupabai vs Union of India [(2005) 3 GLR 2378] of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court ; Dakshin 26 OA No. 746/2016 Railway Employees Union vs General Manager Southern Railway [(1987) 1 SCC 677] of Hon'ble Supreme Court ; Union of India & Ors. Vs. Prem Pal Singh [W.P.(C) 7618/2014 decided on 10.11.2014] of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi ; etc. at length.Thereafter, while bringing out the law as settled regarding the counting of service for pensionary purposes in respect of periods served as casual labour, casual labour with T.S. and temporary railway servant etc. the Hon'ble Supreme Court had consistently distinguished between service rendered as casual labour after obtaining temporary status and service rendered as temporary railway servant. Further, no surviving challenge to validity of the related statutory provisions, inter alia the I.R.E.M. Rule-1501 had come to be mentioned. Thus, it was submitted that this matter had attained finality and also was no more res integra.
27. In support, the parts of the aforesaid Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment and Order dated 24.03.2017 in the case of Rakesh Kumar vs Union of India [(2017) 13 SCC 388] (supra) that were of relevance for the issue of service rendered as casual labour towards grant of pension as raised vide the present O.A., were shown. Those are cited hereafter, while avoiding repetition of the I.R.E.M. provisions or the RS(P) Rules- 1993 previously cited at Para-11 and Para-12 respectively of this Order (supra),inter alia as follows - (Emphasis provided)for relevance/clarity "24. The Tribunal as well as High Court has referred to Para 20 of the Master Circular No. 54, Para 2005 of Indian Railway Establishment Manual (I.R.E.M.) as well as Rules, 1993.
25. Para 20 of the Master Circular No. 54 is quoted as below:-
"20. Counting of the period of service of Casual Labour for pensionary benefits: - Half of the period of service of casual labour (other than casual labour employed on Projects) after attainment of temporary status on completion of 120 days continuous service if it is followed by absorption in service as regular railway employee, counts for pensionary benefits. With effect from 1-1-1981, the benefit has also been extended to Project Casual Labour."
26. Next Provision need to be noted is Para 2005 of I.R.E.M., which is as follows:-
"(a) ... ... Casual labour including Project casual labour shall be eligible to count only half the period of service rendered by them after attaining temporary status on completion of prescribed days of continuous employment and before regular absorption, as qualifying service for the 27 OA No. 746/2016 purpose of pensionary benefits. This benefit will be admissible only after their absorption in regular employment. ... ... "
27. Railway Services (Pension) Rules,1993 have been framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Rule 20 and Rule 31 of Rules, 1993 which are relevant for our purpose, are extracted as below: -
"20. Commencement of qualifying service-Subject to the provisions of these rules, qualifying service of a railway servant shall commence from the date he takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity:
Provided that officiating or temporary service is followed, without interruption, by substantive appointment in the same or another service or post:
"31. Counting of service paid from Contingencies- In respect of a railway servant, in service on or after the 22nd day of August, 1968, half the service paid from contingencies shall be taken into account for calculating pensionary benefits on absorption in regular employment, subject to the following condition namely ... ...
......
(d) the service paid from contingencies has been continuous and followed by absorption in regular employment without a break; ......
NOTE - (1) the provisions of this rule shall also apply to casual labour paid from contingencies.
(2) The expression "absorption in regular employment" means absorption against a regular post."
28. The perusal of para 20 of the Master Circular indicates that only half of the period of service of a casual labour after attainment of temporary status on completion of 120 days continuous service if it is followed by absorption in service as a regular Railway employee, counts for pensionary benefits. ......
32. The High Court in the impugned judgment has relied on Rule 20 of Rules, 1993 and judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad & Anr. Vs. Shaikh Abdul Khader(Supra). Andhra Pradesh High Court in the above case after referring to Rule 31 of Rules, 1993, para 20 of Master Circular No.54 of 94 and para 2005 of I.R.E.M. as well as Rule 20 laid down following:
"... there remains no doubt that on absorption whole of the period for which a casual labour worked after getting temporary status would have to be counted ... ... Once he is given temporary status that means that he has been absorbed in the department. ... ...
33. The above judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court was subsequently considered by the Andhra Pradesh High Court itself in Writ Petition No. 10838 of 2001, the General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad & another Vs. A.Ramanamma decided on 01.05.2009 wherein earlier judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Shaikh Abdul Khader(Supra) was not followed after referring to judgment of this High Court in General Manager, North West Railway & others Vs. Chanda Devi, 2008 (2) SCC 108.
34. Following are reasons given in subsequent judgment for not following Shaik Abdul Khader(Supra):
" Similarly, Shaik Abdul Khader(supra) directing counting of the entire service rendered by a casual labour after getting temporary status even before absorption for purposes of qualifying service for pension/family pension, runs contrary to the distinction between 'casual labour with temporary status' and 'temporary railway servants' recognized by Chanda Devi(supra) and other decisions of the Supreme Court. The conclusion in Shaik Abdul Khader(supra) that once a casual labour is given temporary status, that means that he has 28 OA No. 746/2016 been absorbed in the department, does not appear to fit in with the interpretation of the rules and the legal position by the Apex Court."
35. The Judgment of this Court in Chanda Devi's case(Supra) considered the nature of employment of casual labour who was granted temporary status. In the above case, Smt. Santosh, the Respondent was widow of Sh. Ram Niwas who was a project casual labour. Under the scheme framed by Union of India in pursuance of order of this court in Inderpal Yadav Vs. Union of India, 1985 (2) SCC 648, Ram Niwas was treated as temporary employee w.e.f 01.01.1986. After the death of Ram Niwas, her widow filed the claim for grant of family pension which was rejected by the Railway against which the widow approached the Central Administration Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the claim, Writ Petition filed by Union of India was dismissed by the Rajasthan High Court against which the appeal was filed. After referring to Rule 2001, Rule2002 and Rule 2005 of I.R.E.M., this Court held that Rule 2005 clearly lays down the entitlement and privileges admissible to casual labour who are treated as temporary i.e. given temporary status.
36. This Court further held that there is a distinction between the casual labour having a temporary status and temporary servant, para 24 of the judgment is relevant which is quoted as below:
"24. The contrast between a casual labour having a temporary status and a temporary servant may immediately be noticed from the definition of a temporary railway servant contained in Rule 1501 occurring in Chapter XV of the Manual:
"1501. (i) Temporary railway servants Definition- A 'temporary railway servant' means a railway servant without a lien on a permanent post on a railway or any other administration or office under the Railway Board. The term does not include 'casual labour', including 'casual labour' with temporary status', a 'contract' or 'part time' employee or an 'apprentice'."
37. This Court in the above case has also disapproved the judgment of Gujarat High Court wherein it was held that casual labour after obtaining temporary status becomes a temporary railway servant. ... ...
38. In Chanda Devi's case, ultimately this Court set aside the judgment of Rajasthan High Court which held that the widow of Shri Niwas was entitled for pension. This Court held that there is a distinction between casual labour having temporary status and the temporary servant. The cases before us are all the case where casual labour has been granted temporary status. Grant of temporary status is not equivalent to grant of an appointment against a post. ......
40. Rule 20 provides that qualifying service shall commence from the date the employee takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity. Rule 20 is attracted when a person is appointed to the post in any of the above capacities. Rule 20 has no application when appointment is not against any post. When a casual labour is granted a temporary status, grant of a status confers various privileges as enumerated in para 2005 of I.R.E.M. One of the benefits enumerated in para 2005 sub clause(a) is also to make him eligible to count only half of the services rendered by him after attaining temporary status. Rule 20 is thus clearly not attracted in a case where only a temporary status is granted to casual worker and no appointment is made in any capacity against any post.
......
42. The above Proviso has to be read along with the main Rule 20, when main Rule 20 contemplates commencement of qualifying service from the date he takes charge of the post, the appointment to a post is implicit and a condition precedent. The proviso put another different condition that 29 OA No. 746/2016 officiating or temporary service is followed, without interruption, by substantive appointment in the same or another service or post. The proviso cannot be read independent to the main provision nor it can mean that by only grant of temporary status a casual employee is entitled to reckon his service of temporary status for purpose of pensionary benefit.
......
46. As observed above, the grant of temporary status of casual labour is not akin to appointment against a post and such contingency is not covered by Rule 20 and the same is expressly covered by Rule 31 which provides for "half the service paid from contingencies shall be taken into account for calculating pensionary benefits on absorption in regular employment subject to certain conditions enumerated therein." Thus Rule 31 is clearly applicable while computing the eligible services for calculating pensionary benefits on granting of temporary status."
......
28. From the examination of the foregoing, it had been found that the issue of admissibility of pension in the case of a casual labour who had been granted T.S. but had expired before being medically examined/screened for regularization regularized had been decided by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court vide Judgment and Order dated 01.05.2005 in the case of Rukhiben Rupabhai (supra) by holding inter alia - that inclusion of the clause to exclude the `casual labour with temporary status' in the definition of temporary railway servants in Rule- 1501 of the I.R.E.M.had taken them out from the category of "temporary railway servant" and had thereby committed breach of the Apex Court's decisions in Inder Pal Yadav case (supra) ; that since there existed only four categories, namely, (1) permanent, (2) temporary (3) casual labour and (4) substitutes, the casual labour after the prescribed initial continuous employment became `temporary railway servant', and therefore, he cannot be made `casual labour with temporary status' as in the Railways Circular dated 11th September 1986 ; and that the said Circular had no legal sanction, against the Apex Court decisions in Inder Pal Yadav case (supra), contrary to original scheme and as such, hit by Articles 14, 16, 21, 41/42 of the Constitution of India. The aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court had been overruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide the Judgment and Order dated 12.12.2007 in the Chanda Devi case (supra) and further held to be clearly erroneous in the Judgment and Order dated 21.07.2011 (supra) in the specific Appeal against the same.Further, no challenge to validity of the related 30 OA No. 746/2016 statutory provisions, inter alia the I.R.E.M. Rule-1501, as was allowed to be filed within three months from Order dated 21.07.2011, had come to be filed in the stipulated time ; nor had any surviving challenge as such been mentioned in the voluminous material or case laws presented before us. Thus, it had emerged that this matter had attained finality after reaching and having been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and thereby also was no more res integra.
29. In the conspectus of the foregoing examination and analysis of facts and extant statutory provisions as well as by placing reliance on the authority of the various Judgments and Orders of the Hon'ble Superior Courts - including the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur and the Hon'ble Supreme Court - that were brought out through the pleadings and arguments before us, we found firstly, that the claim of the Applicantthat a casual labour granted Temporary Status had to be deemed as a Temporary Railway servant from the date of such grant of T.S. ; and thus the deceased employee was entitled to all service benefits as such, inter alia the pension, from 01.02.1991 ; and the Applicant to family pension from 03.09.2005 i.e. the date of death of the deceased employee - was not found to be borne out or admissible on the basis of the extant service-related statutory provisions inter alia under the I.R.E.M. Further, from the relevant provisions of RS(P) Rules- 1993, inter alia at Rule-18(3) thereof that was sought to be relied upon by the Applicant, it had emerged that the pensionary, terminal or death benefits were admissible to temporary railway servant as per the applicable provisions ; but the same were not applicable in respect of service period in a post paid from contingencies, unless the absorption of the employee in regular employment - which also would be subject to the service paid from contingencies having been continuous and followed by absorption in regular employment without a break. The same had also found support in the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Judgment and Order dated 12.12.2007 in Chanda Devi case (supra). Hence, in the deceased employee's case vide the present O.A., such absorption in regular employment was admittedly 31 OA No. 746/2016 not feasible as per the prescribed procedure, since by the time grant of T.S. itself was made on 23.09.2005 retrospectively w.e.f. 01.02.1991, he had already expired on 03.09.2005.
Secondly, we also found in respect of the precedent decided Court Case cited before us, viz. the decisions of this Tribunal in the cases - of Smt. Uchhav Kanwar, decided vide Order dated 17.11.2005 in O.A. No.35 of 2005 ; and of Smt. Mangi Bai, decided vide Order dated 20.01.2015 in O.A. No.582 of 2005 - that in each of those, the medical examination/screening had been undertaken by the railway authorities whereby they had been assessed to be fit and were awaiting regularization duly - during which period they had expired. It had thus been ordered to extend family pension to their family/widow. Per contra, in the case of the deceased employee vide the present O.A., the husband of the Applicant could not be screened for regular appointment before his death, so he had not been assessed as fit for regularization at the time of his death. Hence, the case of the Applicant was not found to be similar to or squarely covered by the cases aforesaid, which thus were not of help to the Applicant. Importantly further, the non- admissibility of family pension in case of railway casual labour with T.S., who could not undergo medical examination/screening for regularization in railway service but had unfortunately died before that, was no more res integra, as the same had been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide the Judgment and Order dated 12.12.2007 in Chanda Devi case [2008 (2) SCC 108] (supra). The same had also been followed/relied upon subsequently in the Judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur - that dated 21.02.2017 in D.B. C.W.P. No.915/2002 and that dated 11.04.2017 in D.B. C.W.P. No.1732/2007.
Thirdly, the challenge to the validity of the Rule-1501 of the I.R.E.M. in that it had excluded inter alia the casual labour granted temporary status under the railway from the definition of the temporary railway servants, was sought to be brought by the Applicant vide the M.A. No.151/2025 dated 25.04.2025 at the final stages of the arguments/hearing. It was seen that the purported grounds for that 32 OA No. 746/2016 challenge were the very same as had been incorporated at first in the Judgment and Order dated 01.05.2005 of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Rukhiben Rupabai vs Union of India [(2005) 3 GLR 2378] (supra) - that such change of definition was tantamount to an illegal alteration/unauthorized interpretation of the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Inder Pal Yadav v/s Union of India in the Hon'ble Apex Court [(1985)2 SCC 108] - wherein the original definition of Temporary Railway Servant was clear and that did not exclude the T.S. granted Casual Labour out of the array of Temporary Railway Servant. Further, it had been contended that the railway employees were to belong to one of the four categories - namely, (1) Permanent, (2) Temporary, (3) Casual labour and (4) Substitutes. Thus, no other category of employee as Casual (T.S.) can be created, which would be artificial and unauthorized interpretation by Administrative Order in a rule framed under the provision of Art.309 of Constitution of India - and thus, the superimposition of clause to exclude T.S. granted casual employees from the array of Temporary Railway Servant, vide Rule-1501 was claimed to be violative of the fundamental guarantees granted to employees under Art. 14,16, 21, 41 and 42 of the Constitution of India ; and thus, was not sustainable in the eyes of law. We found in respect of the same, that the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court had been overruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide the Judgment and Order dated 12.12.2007 in the Chanda Devi case (supra) and further held to be clearly erroneous in the Judgment and Order dated 21.07.2011 (supra) in the specific Appeal against the same. Further, no challenge to validity of the related statutory provisions, inter alia the I.R.E.M. Rule-1501 as had been allowed to be filed within three months from Order dated 21.07.2011, had come to be filed within the stipulated time nor any surviving challenge as such had been mentioned in the voluminous material or case laws presented before us. Thus, it had emerged that this matter had attained finality after reaching and having been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and thereby also was no more res integra.
33 OA No. 746/201630. Before proceeding to decide the case on merits, we had taken note of the Applicant's submission wherebyattention was drawn to the Railways' own instructions, inter alia those providing for Casual Labour with T.S. to be absorbed/regularized as Railway Servant, after screening and Medical Fitness in a time-bound manner, by providing relaxation in medical standards in cases of delay etc. - for which I.R.E.M. Rule-2005 and Rule 2311 under Chapter XXIII of I.R.E.M.were cited. However, on reference, the extant I.R.E.M. version showed that Chapter-XXIII had pertained to 'Cooperative Societies', and the Rule-2311 thereunder had pertained to 'Procedure for Payment of Subsidy' - both totally unrelated to the issue at hand. The Applicant had however submitted that the Order for granting T.S. status w.e.f. 01.12.1991 to the Applicant's husband was passed by the Respondents on 23.09.2005, i.e. after a delay of 14 years, by which time he had already expired ; and that such grant of T.S. to a casual labour was the gateway for regularization in service or grant of a permanent status to an employee, which thus got unduly delayed by the Respondents, during which period other Casual Labour would have been regularized and granted permanent status in the service of the Railways, with appropriate admissible benefits. Therefore, it was sought that although deceased, the interest of the Applicant's husband deserved to be protected against supersession by allowing regularization in Railway service and consequential promotions etc. from the date persons junior to the deceased employee had been granted the same.
31. In this respect, we once again found it gainful to advert to the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment and Order dated 24.03.2017 in the case of Rakesh Kumar vs Union of India [(2017) 13 SCC 388] (supra), which had inter alia also stated that -
49. There is one more aspect of the matter which needs to be noted. There is specific rule in Rules, 1993 i.e. Rule 107, which empowers Pension Sanctioning Authority to approach the Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) for dispensing with or relaxing the requirement of any Rule operation of which causes hardship in any particular case. Rule 107 is quoted as below:
"107. Power to relax - Where the pension sanctioning authority is satisfied that the operation of any of these rules causes undue hardship in any particular case, that authority, may for reasons to be recorded in writing, 34 OA No. 746/2016 approach the Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) for dispensing with or relaxing the requirements of that rule to such extent and subject to such exceptions and conditions as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner. The Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) shall examine each such case and arrange to communicate the sanction of the President to the proposed dispensation or relaxation as it may consider necessary keeping in view the merits of each case and keeping in view of any other statutory provisions:
Provided that no such order shall be made without concurrence of the Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare, in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India."
50. Thus, in cases of those railway servants who are not eligible as per existing rules for grant of pension and there are certain mitigating circumstances which require consideration for relaxation the proposals can be forwarded by Pension Sanctioning Authority to Railway Board in an individual or group of cases. We, thus, while allowing this appeal and setting aside the judgment of the High Court leave it open to the Pension Sanctioning Authority to recommend for grant of relaxation under Rule 107 in deserving cases." ......
55. ... ... (iv) It is open to Pension Sanctioning Authority to recommend for relaxation in deserving case to the Railway Board for dispensing with or relaxing requirement of any rule with regard to those casual workers who have been subsequently absorbed against the post and do not fulfill the requirement of existing rule for grant of pension, in deserving cases. On a request made in writing, the Pension Sanctioning Authority shall consider as to whether any particular case deserves to be considered for recommendation for relaxation under Rule 107 of Rules, 1993.
32. Thus, it was observed that the RS(P) Rules-1993 incorporate at Rule-107 the provisions relating to situations where the operation of any of these rules causes undue hardship in any particular case - inter alia for dispensing with or relaxing the requirements of that rule to such extent and subject to such exceptions and conditions as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner. The same had also been noted and incorporated in the Judgment and Order dated 24.03.2017 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Rakesh Kumar case (supra). We observed in this regard that the facts related to this aspect were not contested among the parties ; however, there was no presentation that the Applicant had made any formal request as such.
33. Therefore, after considering all the aspects of the present O.A., we did not find merit in the claims that the Applicant's husband was entitled to pension w.e.f. 01.02.1991 i.e. the date of effect of the grant of temporary status as a Casual Labour and that consequently the Applicant was entitled to family pension from the date of her husband's 35 OA No. 746/2016 death on 03.09.2005. The impugned actions of the Respondents are therefore not found fit for interference in terms of reliefs prayed for by the Applicant.
34. Accordingly, the present O.A. is disposed of as dismissed on merits ; however, subject to observations at Para-10 and Para-32 hereinforegoing. Pending M.A.s, if any are also disposed of in light hereof. No order as to costs.
(Lok Ranjan) (Ranjana Shahi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/ysm/