2025 INSC 855 C. A. No. 10672 of 2016 Page 1 of 10

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10672 OF 2016

MALA DEVI …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

1. The Appellant herein is the widow of Late Shri Om

Prakash Maharaj, a temporary employee with the Eastern Indian

Railways, who died in harness on 10.07.1996, having completed

9 years 8 months and 26 days of service from the date of his

appointment on 15.10.1986.

2. The Appellant had approached the Learned Central

Administrative Tribunal vide O.A./050/00276/2014 seeking

C. A. No. 10672 of 2016 Page 2 of 10

family pension from the date of death of her husband with all

consequential benefits along with interest at the rate of 18% per

annum, which was dismissed by the Learned Tribunal vide

Judgment/Order dated 23.12.2015. Vide the said decision, the

Learned Tribunal held that the claim of the Appellant was devoid

of any merit, inasmuch as in absence of a document for

regularization and permanent absorption of the husband of the

Appellant, Appellant is not entitled for the grant of family

pension. Even though, the deceased husband of the Appellant had

reached the stage of screening for regularization of his

employment with the Railways, the Learned Tribunal observed

that “the screening will not confer any right to pension.”

3. Aggrieved thereby, the Appellant preferred a W. P. (C) No.

8524 of 2016 before the High Court of Judicature at Patna, which

was ultimately dismissed vide Impugned Order dated

12.05.2016. In drawing reference to the decision in Uttar

Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. v. Surji Devi

1

, the High

Court observed that family pension is not admissible to the wife

of an employee whose services were not regularized. It was

further noted that since the service rendered by the husband of

the Appellant is 9 years 8 months and 26 days, it falls short of 10

years, which is the minimum qualifying service for grant of

1

[2008] 2 SCC 310

C. A. No. 10672 of 2016 Page 3 of 10

family pension. The said Order is under challenge before this

Court.

4. The factual conspectus of the captioned Appeal reveals

that the deceased, Mr. Om Prakash Maharaj, was appointed

“Summer Waterman”, Danapur, vide letter dated 15.10.1986

upon qualifying the medical examinations. Upon completion of

more than 7 years of continuous service as a Substitute Porter, he

cleared the Screening Test and was deputed at Garhara as a

Guard/Shuntman upon instructions of the Dy. Chief Yard Master,

Garhara. Unfortunately, on 10.07.1996, the deceased met with a

fatal accident while at work and died in harness.

5. The deceased kept working as a ‘substitute’ till his death

and had admittedly been in continuous service for 9 years 8

months and 26 days. Upon his demise, the Appellant wife has

received ex-gratia to the next kin of deceased and was

subsequently appointed as a Substitute Gangman on

compassionate grounds, and the employment was regularized

after completion of 120 days. The controversy arose when the

Appellant wife sought family pension, which has been denied by

the Railways on the premise that since the employment of the

deceased had not been regularized, the question of family

pension does not arise.

C. A. No. 10672 of 2016 Page 4 of 10

6. It was argued on behalf of the Appellant that Rule 1515 of

the Indian Railway Establishment Manual confers upon the

Substitutes, certain rights and privileges as may be admissible to

temporary railway servants, from time to time, on completion of

four (04) months of continuous service. In the same breadth,

reliance was also placed on Rule 18(3) Railway Service

(Pension) Rules, 1993 which extends benefit of family pension

and death gratuity in the event of death in harness of a temporary

railway servant on the same scale of a temporary railway servant.

The said Rule read in conjunction with Rule 75(2)(a) of the

Pension Rules, 1993 also confers upon the family of a railway

servant, family pension (hereinafter in this rule referred to as

family pension) under the Family Pension Scheme for Railway

Servants, 1964, in the event a railway servant dies after

competition of one year of continuous service. Indubitably, the

deceased was in service for 9 years 8 months and 26 days till the

date of his death, and in terms of the said provisions, has also

crossed the necessary threshold to be granted the status of a

temporary railway servant. The relevant provisions are

reproduced as under:

“Indian Railway Establishment Manual-Vol-I”

“1515- Rights and privileges admissible to the

Substitutes—Substitutes should be afforded all the

rights and privileges as may be admissible to

temporary railway servants, from time to time on

C. A. No. 10672 of 2016 Page 5 of 10

completion of four months continuous service.

Substitute school teachers may, however, be

afforded temporary status after they have put in

continuous service of three months and their

services and their services should be treated as

continuous for all purposes except seniority on their

eventual absorption against regular posts after

selection.

“Railway Pension Rules, 1993”

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.

________

Rule 75:

………

(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (18) and

without prejudice to the provisions contained in

sub-rule(4), where a railway servant dies,— (a)

after completion of one year of continuous service;

or (b) before completion of one year of continuous

service, provided the deceased railway servant

concerned immediately prior to his appointment to

the service or post was examined by the appropriate

medical authority and declared fit by that authority

C. A. No. 10672 of 2016 Page 6 of 10

for railway service; or (c) after retirement from

service and was on the date of death in receipt of a

pension, or compassionate allowance, referred to in

these rules, the family of the deceased shall be

entitled to family pension (hereinafter in this rule

referred to as family pension) under the Family

Pension Scheme for Railway Servants, 1964, the

amount of which shall be determined at a uniform

rate of thirty per cent. of basic pay subject to a

minimum of three thousand and five hundred rupees

per mensem and a maximum of twenty-seven

thousand rupees per mensem.”

7. Per contra, it was the contention of the Respondents that

the deceased had not completed 10 years in service which is the

minimum qualifying service for the grant of family pension and

as he was also not regularized, the question of grant of family

pension does not arise. It was further averred that the deceased

had also not been in continuous service as a substitute for more

than four (04) months, and the hence the status of a temporary

railway servant for the purposes of grant of family pension

cannot be extended to him. The Counsel for the Respondents has

argued that the argument in reference to Rule 1515 of the Railway

Establishment Manual and the Railway Pension Rules, 1993 was

not made by the Appellant before the courts below and cannot be

taken at this stage of the proceedings.

8. We have heard the submissions on behalf of both the

parties. The intervention of this Court is limited to the question

C. A. No. 10672 of 2016 Page 7 of 10

whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant

is entitled to family pension of her late husband, and whether a

denial of such relief is justified.

9. At the outset, we refer to the ratio in the case of Prabhavati

Devi v. Union of India & Ors.

2

whereby this Court had extended

the relief of family pension of the widow of the deceased railway

servant, who had died in harness. It was held that the orders of

the Tribunal to deny family pension to the widow and children of

the deceased were unsustainable as the deceased had acquired the

temporary status and was already working at his regular post at

the time of his death. In the present case however, the deceased

was absorbed in service as a substitute in 1986, and served for 9

years 8 months and 26 days, just 3 months short of completing

the threshold of a decade in service. After one year of continuous

service, clearing his medical examination and screening, and

upon being subsequently deputed on a different post, on the

instructions of Dy. CYM, Garhara, he acquired the status of a

temporary railway servant for the purposes of the Railway

Service (Pension) Rules, 1993 and hence became entitled to the

benefit of family pension, as any other temporary railway

servant. Hence, in light of the decision in Prabhavati Devi

(supra), the petitioner is certainly entitled for grant of family

pension.

2

AIR 1996 SC 752

C. A. No. 10672 of 2016 Page 8 of 10

10. Rule 75 of Railway Pension Rules, 1993, makes it further

clear that the qualifying service for a temporary railway servant

to be entitled for the grant of benefit of family pension is a

continuous service of one year. More so, this benefit of family

pension is accrued to the family of the deceased railway servant

who died in harness after completion of one year of continuous

service, without any discrimination, whether the post was

temporary or had been regularized. On this ground alone, the

denial of family pension accrued to the Appellant is unjustifiable.

11. We have further carefully examined the facts, and legal

principles applicable in the present case, and we find that the

argument canvassed by the Respondents in depriving the

Appellant of family pension from her deceased husband for not

completing 10 years of qualifying service by falling short of

hardly 3 months, is not in congruence with the legislative intent

of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual & the Railway

Pension Rules, 1993. The salutary purpose of the rules thereunder

is to extend the benefit of family pension to the families of those

servants who have served for a considerable strength of time. The

present case is not a case of a casual labourer being simply

accorded a temporary status, without any scrutiny or examination

as cautioned against in Clause 4.4. of the Master Circular issued

by the Ministry of Railways. The said Circular also gives a clear

mandate in clause 5.1 that substitutes who have acquired

C. A. No. 10672 of 2016 Page 9 of 10

temporary status were to be screened by a Screening Committee,

a stage which was admittedly passed by the deceased. It is an

admitted factum that the deceased had reached the necessary

stage of scrutiny/screening for regularization of the post, and had

been carrying out his services, literally till his last breath.

12. In the light of above statutory provisions governing the

field, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Appellant is

entitled for grant of family pension along with arrears of family

pension.

13. For the purpose of computation of family pension in the

present case, the family pension qua the deceased shall be

governed as per Rule 75 r/w Rule 18(3) Railway Service

(Pension) Rules, 1993 which extends benefit of family pension

and death gratuity in the event of death in harness of a temporary

railway servant on the same scale of a temporary railway servant.

The Respondents shall calculate the arrears of family pension and

shall pay the arrears as well as shall pay regular family pension

to the Appellant within a period of four months.

14. Resultantly, keeping in view the peculiar facts and

circumstances of the case, the plight of the Appellant who has

been pursuing the litigation seeking family pension since 2014,

and the salient purpose of a family pension to serve dependents

tide over the crisis, we further deem it appropriate exercise of our

C. A. No. 10672 of 2016 Page 10 of 10

power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, and award

ex-gratia amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the Appellant.

15. In light thereof, the Appeal is allowed. The Impugned

Order dated 12.05.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature

at Patna, and the Order dated 23.12.2015 passed by the Learned

Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna, are set aside. The

Respondents are directed to ensure compliance within four

months. Applications if any, stand disposed of.

……………………………………J.

[SANJAY KAROL]

……………………………………J.

[SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA ]

NEW DELHI

July 16, 2025.