Dismissed

Smt. Badami W/O Late Shri Balu v. Union of India

Rajasthan HC11 Mar 2024CW/6406/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the CAT order denying family pension to the wife of a deceased casual labourer. The Court held that the deceased was not granted temporary status or regularization, and no Railway Rules supported granting pension to a casual labourer's widow.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt. Badami W/O Late Shri Balu Vs Union of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:12058-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6406/2022

¶4

Smt. Badami W/o Late Shri Balu, Aged About 79 Years, (ExChokidar, Dy. Ce (Re) Western Railway Brc), R/o Meda Ka Badiya, Nayagaon, Post Jha, Tehsil Masuda, District Ajmer (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Union Of India, Through General Manager, Western Railway, Church Gate, Mumbai-400020

¶8

Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, D.o. Batti Road, Shastri Nagar, Ratlam (M.p.) - 457001

¶9

Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, 69, Santosh Wadi Road, Railway Colony, Danteshwar, Vadodara (Gujrat) - 390004

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. KC Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. PC Sharma

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL

¶13

Judgment

¶14

11/03/2024

¶15

AVNEESH JHINGAN, J (ORAL):-

¶16

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.

¶17

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

¶18

(2 of 3)

¶19

[2024:RJ-JP:12058-DB]

¶20

[CW-6406/2022]

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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

¶24

Court in Union of India & Ors. Versus Rabia Bikaner & Ors.

¶25

(1997) 6 SCC 580 is relied upon .

¶26

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings.

¶27

The Tribunal had dealt with the merits of the case and now

¶28

matter is being considered on merits, there is no need to dilate upon the objection of limitation.

¶29

(3 of 3)

¶30

[2024:RJ-JP:12058-DB]

¶31

[CW-6406/2022]

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

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.

¶35

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.

¶36

There is no factual or legal error calling for interference in the impugned order.

¶37

The petition is dismissed.

¶38

(BHUWAN GOYAL),J

¶39

(AVNEESH JHINGAN),J

¶40

Chandan/Riya/14

¶41

Reportable: Yes

Smt. Badami W/O Late Shri Balu v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt. Badami W/O Late Shri Balu v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahipal Son of Shri Guljhari Lal Vs the Union of India

Nekiram S/O Nemichand Vs Smt. Usha Sharma

Rajesh Kumar S/O Shri Hansraj Vs Shri Suresh Kumar Ola