Wife sued for family pension after husband's death. Husband held temporary status as Group D equivalent. High Court dismissed petition, holding temporary status does not equate to regularization required for statutory family pension entitlement under the Scheme.
Writ application dismissed; claim for family pension rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18094 of 2014
=========================================================== Shobha Devi, Wife of Late Gore Lal Mallik, Resident of Mohalla - Betwan Bazar, Argara Raaod, P.S. - Kasim Bazar, District- Munger.
.... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Union of India through the Secretary Cum Director General, Department of Post, Government of India, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi.
.... .... Respondent/s
=========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. M.P. Dixit, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, A.S.G.
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA) Date: 22-08-2016
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Patna High Court CWJC No.18094 of 2014 dt.22-08-2016
2/6
from 1st of January, 1998. Later on 28th of July, 2011 he was conferred Temporary Status at par with Group „D‟ employees. Unfortunately, the husband of the petitioner died on 13th of December, 2013.
Patna High Court CWJC No.18094 of 2014 dt.22-08-2016
3/6
contribution to General Provident Fund and would also be entitled to certain other benefits. The relevant clause of the Scheme reads as
under:-
“7. Conferment of Temporary Status does not automatically imply that the casual labourers would be appointed as a regular Group „D‟ employees within any fixed time frame. Appointment to Group „D‟ vacancies will continue to be done as per the extant Recruitment Rules, which stipulate preference to eligible ED employees.
Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 19th of January, 2016 in C.W.J.C. No. 227 of 2016 (The Union of India & Ors. Vs. Smt. Suman Singh) whereby referring to Supreme Court judgment in
Patna High Court CWJC No.18094 of 2014 dt.22-08-2016
4/6
Santosh‟s case (supra) this Court held that Temporary Status employee however long he may have served in that status, cannot be treated to be Group „D‟ employee. The relevant extract from the judgment reads as under:-
“6. In our view, this Circular does not convert a temporary status employee, however, long he may have served in that status, to regular Group “D” employees. That would be matter of selection and available vacancy, as Group “D” is a cadre with defined strength.
Patna High Court CWJC No.18094 of 2014 dt.22-08-2016
5/6
employee as services of her husband were never regularized. The relevant extract from the judgment reads as under:-
“16. The scheme relating to grant of family pension was made under a statute. A person would be entitled to the benefit thereof subject to the statutory interdicts. From a bare perusal of the provisions contained in the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. 2 vis-à-vis the Family Pension Scheme, it would be evident that the respondent was not entitled to the grant of any family pension. Husband of the respondent was a work-charged employee. His services had never been regularized. It may be unfortunate that he had worked for 11 years. He expired before he could get the benefit of the regularization scheme but sentiments and sympathy alone cannot be a ground for taking a view different from what is permissible in law. (See Maruti Udyod Ltd. v. Ram Lal (2005) 2 SCC 638, State of Bihar v. Amrendra Kumar Mishra, (2006) 12 SCC 561, SBI v. Mahatma Mishra (2006) 13 SCC 727, State of Karnataka v. Ameerbi, (2007) 11 SCC 681 and State of M.P. v. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, (2008) 1 SCC 456.)
The statutory provisions, as noticed hereinbefore, debar grant of family pension in favour of the family members as the deceased employee was a work-charged employee and not a permanent employee or temporary employee. The period during which an employee worked as a work-charged employee could be taken into consideration only when his services are regularized and he becomes permanent and not otherwise.”
Court has found fault with the finding/directions given by the Tribunal to regularize the services of the employee and also returned a finding that the family of the deceased was not entitled to any
Patna High Court CWJC No.18094 of 2014 dt.22-08-2016
6/6
Family Pension. The claim of the applicant before the Tribunal was set aside. Even the judgment in Santosh‟s case (supra) is of no help to the petitioner.
(Hemant Gupta, J)
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)
P.K.P. N.A.F.R.
U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a family pension is payable to the wife of a deceased employee who was conferred Temporary Status but never regularized to Group D status.
Whether the conferment of Temporary Status under the Casual Labourers Scheme automatically entitles the employee to family pension benefits.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
General Manager, North West Railway and others Vs. Chanda DeviReferred¶23
General Manager, North West Railway and others Vs. Chanda Devi, (2008) 2 SCC 108 · Who else cites this
Indian Council of Agricultural Research and Another Vs. SantoshReferred¶24
Indian Council of Agricultural Research and Another Vs. Santosh, (2006) 11 SCC 157 · Who else cites this
The Union of India & Ors. Vs. Suman SinghRelied on¶36
The Union of India & Ors. Vs. Suman Singh, C.W.J.C. No. 227 of 2016 dated 19th of January, 2016
Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others Vs. Surji DeviRelied on¶44
Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others Vs. Surji Devi, (2008) 2 SCC 310 · Who else cites this
Maruti Udyod Ltd. v. Ram LalReferred¶48
Maruti Udyod Ltd. v. Ram Lal (2005) 2 SCC 638 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar v. Amrendra Kumar MishraReferred¶48
State of Bihar v. Amrendra Kumar Mishra, (2006) 12 SCC 561 · Who else cites this
SBI v. Mahatma MishraReferred¶48
SBI v. Mahatma Mishra (2006) 13 SCC 727 · Who else cites this
State of Karnataka v. AmeerbiReferred¶48
State of Karnataka v. Ameerbi, (2007) 11 SCC 681 · Who else cites this
State of M.P. v. Sanjay Kumar PathakReferred¶48
State of M.P. v. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, (2008) 1 SCC 456 · Who else cites this
Shobha Devi
The Union of India
Hemant Gupta
Ahsanuddin Amanullah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
