Rajasthan High Court
Smt. Badami W/O Late Shri Balu vs Union Of India (2024:Rj-Jp:12058-Db) on 11 March, 2024
Author: Bhuwan Goyal
Bench: Bhuwan Goyal
[2024:RJ-JP:12058-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6406/2022
Smt. Badami W/o Late Shri Balu, Aged About 79 Years, (Ex-
Chokidar, Dy. Ce (Re) Western Railway Brc), R/o Meda Ka Badiya,
Nayagaon, Post Jha, Tehsil Masuda, District Ajmer (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through General Manager, Western
Railway, Church Gate, Mumbai-400020
2. Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, D.o. Batti
Road, Shastri Nagar, Ratlam (M.p.) - 457001
3. Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, 69,
Santosh Wadi Road, Railway Colony, Danteshwar,
Vadodara (Gujrat) - 390004
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. KC Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. PC Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL
Judgment
11/03/2024
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J (ORAL):-
1. This writ petition is filed aggrieved of order dated
21.03.2022 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur
Bench, Jaipur (for short 'Tribunal') dismissing the original
application (hereinafter referred as 'O.A.') of the petitioner.
2. The brief facts are that the deceased husband of the
petitioner was initially appointed as casual labour in June 1965 by
the Western Railways (hereinafter referred as 'Railways'). The
services were rendered as casual labour till death due to cancer
on 18.04.1986. The legal heirs of the deceased approached to
[2024:RJ-JP:12058-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-6406/2022]
Railways for compassionate appointment and for family pension.
In the year 2018, petitioner (wife of deceased) filed OA before the
Tribunal seeking directions for release of family pension from the
date of death, alongwith consequential benefits. The respondent
raised two objections, firstly that the OA deserves to be dismissed
being barred by limitation and secondly that the deceased was
working as a casual labour on the post of Chowkidar, was not even
granted temporary status and was not entitled to family pension.
The Tribunal dismissed the O.A. on both the grounds i.e. on
limitation as well as on merits.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband
of the petitioner had served with the Railways for twenty one
years and should be deemed to have been bestowed temporary
status. Reliance is placed upon the decision of this Court in
S.B.CWP No.6152/2021 in the case of Dhula Ram versus State
of Rajasthan and connected matters. The argument is that after
having served for more than ten years, the services should have
been regularized from the date of initial appointment.
4. Per contra, the services of the deceased were neither
regularized nor was given a temporary status. Case is not covered
for family pension under Railway Rules for Pension. Supreme
Court in Union of India & Ors. Versus Rabia Bikaner & Ors.
(1997) 6 SCC 580 is relied upon.
5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings.
6. The Tribunal had dealt with the merits of the case and now
matter is being considered on merits, there is no need to dilate
upon the objection of limitation.
[2024:RJ-JP:12058-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-6406/2022]
7. It is undisputed fact that the deceased had taken no
remedies during his lifetime for regularization of the services and
no such prayer was made in the O.A. filed before the Tribunal.
8. The only surviving issue is whether on the death of the
casual labourer, wife is entitled to family pension?
9. The Tribunal recorded a finding that nothing was produced
on record to substantiate the plea taken that the deceased was
granted a temporary status. In other words, the deceased was a
casual labourer. No rules of the Railways have been put forth
either before the Tribunal or before us to support the contention
that the wife of a deceased-casual labourer is entitled to family
pension.
10. The reliance upon the decision of this Court in the case
Dhula Ram versus State of Rajasthan (supra) is of no avail. In
those cases, the employee had approached the Court for
regularization of the service after having rendered regular services
for more than ten years. The issue of grant of family pension to
wife of deceased employee was not the issue.
11. The decision of Supreme Court in case of Union of India
versus Rabia Bikaneri (Supra) relied by learned counsel for
respondent supports the conclusion arrived at by tribunal.
12. There is no factual or legal error calling for interference in
the impugned order.
13. The petition is dismissed.
(BHUWAN GOYAL),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J
Chandan/Riya/14
Reportable: Yes
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
