Inder Pal Yadav And Ors. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors Etc on 18 April, 1985
5. It has also been stated that the applicant has no locus standi to
challenge the order dated 11.09.1986 as the deceased during his life
time did not question the same nor was he covered under the said
scheme approved by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Inder Pal
Yadav (supra) as the decision was rendered in respect of the casual
labourers working on the project and were in service as on 01.01.1981,
whereas the deceased was neither working on any project nor was in
service as on the cut-off date i.e. 01.01.1981. The deceased was
engaged as a casual labour on 15.09.1984. However, the temporary
status was granted w.e.f. 15.09.1985 and mere working as a casual
labourer would not entitle him to claim regularization. It has been stated
that the applicant was never screened and the scheme of family pension
is not applicable to the unscreened employees, as per the Railway
Services (Pension) Rules 1993. The applicant was medically examined
on 13.12.1989 for re-engagement of casual labour as Gangman on the
basis of past casual labour service.