“10. It is, however, appropriate to note that the said rules provided for conditions for qualifications for the grant of pension to a government employee under the State Government. However, the 1964 Scheme is a complete independent scheme by itself and its provisions are applicable for the grant of benefit under the same and as already noticed above the same is provided for under Chapter-XV of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, as applicable in Haryana, Volume-II, Part-I. Therefore, the provisions of Rules 3.12 and 3.16(b) of the CSR, Volume-II, as referred to by the learned counsel for the State, are inapplicable. In the case in hand the provisions of the 1964 Scheme would be applicable. The learned counsel for the State then contended that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rabia Bikaner, 1997 (3) SCT 598 (SC) : AIR 1997 SC 2843 , the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of family pension. The question that was considered therein was whether a widow of a casual labourer in Railway Establishment who died after putting in six months service and obtaining the status of a temporary workman but before his appointment to a temporary post after screening is entitled to family pension under the Family Pension Scheme. A reference was made to para 211 of the Railway Establishment Manual wherein causal labourers with temporary status were entitled to certain entitlements and privileges granted to temporary railway servants but this did not entitle them to family pension. It was held that every casual labour employee in Railway Administration for six months was entitled to temporary status then they were empanelled and thereafter were required to be screened by the competent authority. They were appointed in order of merit as and when vacancy for temporary post in regular
