Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court set aside the Patna High Court and Central Administrative Tribunal orders denying family pension to the widow of a deceased railway employee. The Court ruled that the appellant, whose husband died in harness after rendering 9 years, 8 months, and 26 days of service as a substitute railway servant, is entitled to family pension under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. It held that a denial of pension for a shortfall of less than three months is “not in congruence with the legislative intent” and awarded her arrears, regular family pension, and an ex-gratia of ₹5,00,000 under Article 142 of the Constitution.
Facts:
The appellant’s husband, a substitute railway employee with the Eastern Indian Railways, was appointed on 15 October 1986 and died in harness on 10 July 1996. At the time of his death, he had served continuously for 9 years, 8 months, and 26 days. Although he had cleared his screening test and was working on a post at Garhara Yard at the time of his death, he was not formally regularized.
Following his death, the appellant was granted ex-gratia compensation and was appointed as a substitute Gangman on compassionate grounds, later regularized after 120 days. However, when she sought family pension, it was denied on the ground that her husband’s service had not been regularized and that he did not complete the minimum 10-year service requirement.
Issues:
- Whether the widow of a deceased railway employee, who had not completed 10 years of service but had served over 9 years as a substitute, is entitled to family pension?
- Whether a substitute employee who had not been formally regularized can be considered a temporary railway servant for pensionary benefits under the relevant rules?
Petitioner’s Arguments:
The appellant argued that her husband had attained the status of a “temporary railway servant” under Rule 1515 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual and was eligible for benefits under Rules 18(3) and 75(2)(a) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. These provisions entitle family members of temporary railway servants to pensionary benefits if the deceased employee had rendered at least one year of continuous service. She contended that her husband had crossed this threshold and was eligible for screening, and had thus effectively attained temporary status.
Respondent’s Arguments:
The respondents submitted that the deceased had not completed the mandatory 10 years of qualifying service and that his employment was not regularized, thereby disqualifying his widow from family pension. They contended that he had not completed four months of continuous service as a substitute and that his temporary status could not be presumed. They also argued that these contentions based on the Pension Rules were not raised before the lower forums and could not be entertained at this stage.
Analysis of the Law:
The Court analyzed Rule 1515 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual which provides that substitutes who complete four months of continuous service are to be granted the status of temporary railway servants. Rule 18(3) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, allows for grant of family pension and death gratuity to the family of a temporary railway servant who dies in harness. Rule 75(2)(a) further clarifies that family pension is payable if the deceased had completed one year of continuous service, regardless of whether he had been regularized.
Precedent Analysis:
The Court relied heavily on its earlier decision in Prabhavati Devi v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 752, where it had ruled in favour of the widow of a deceased railway employee who had attained temporary status and was working on a regular post. The Court had held that denial of family pension in such cases was unjust. This precedent was directly applicable in the present matter as the deceased had similarly acquired temporary status and died in harness.
Court’s Reasoning:
The Court rejected the technical approach adopted by the Tribunal and High Court in denying the pension merely on the ground that the deceased fell short by three months from completing 10 years of service. It noted:
“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…”
It also rejected the contention that the appellant’s arguments regarding the Pension Rules could not be entertained at this stage, finding that the statutory provisions clearly supported her claim. The Court held that the purpose of the family pension scheme was to support dependents of deceased employees and should be interpreted with this objective in mind.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the Tribunal and the High Court, and directed the respondents to:
- Grant family pension to the appellant under Rule 75 read with Rule 18(3) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993;
- Pay arrears of family pension;
- Start regular disbursement of family pension;
- Pay an ex-gratia amount of ₹5,00,000 to the appellant under Article 142 of the Constitution;
- Ensure compliance within four months.
Implications:
This judgment reinforces the purposive interpretation of pension laws, especially in favour of dependents of government employees who die in harness. It emphasizes that minor shortfalls in service tenure should not deprive families of their rightful benefits, particularly when the deceased had otherwise crossed all thresholds for attaining temporary status. It also underlines that the humanitarian objective of family pension schemes must override technicalities.
Summary of Referred Cases:
- Prabhavati Devi v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 752: Held that the family of a railway servant who attained temporary status is entitled to family pension even if the employee was not formally regularized at the time of death. This case was central to the Court’s reasoning in the present matter.
- Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Surji Devi, [2008] 2 SCC 310: Cited by the High Court to deny relief. However, the Supreme Court distinguished this case on the ground that it did not account for the specific rules applicable to substitute railway servants.
FAQs:
1. Can a railway employee’s family claim pension even if the employee was not regularized?
Yes, if the employee attained temporary status and served for over one year, the family is entitled to family pension under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993.
2. Is 10 years of service mandatory to claim family pension?
No, under Rule 75(2)(a), even one year of continuous service qualifies for family pension in the event of death in harness.
3. Can the Supreme Court award ex-gratia compensation beyond statutory benefits?
Yes, the Supreme Court can exercise powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice, including awarding ex-gratia compensation.