Family Pension For Railway Employees With 10+ Years Of Service Cannot Be Denied Due To Employer's Failure To conduct Screening: P&H High Court

A Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court comprising Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Vikas Suri held that a casual railway employee who was granted temporary status and rendered more than 10 years of qualifying service before death is entitled to family pension benefits under the Family Pension Scheme, 1964, even if he was not formally screened i.e. assessed and confirmed into regular service for eligibility to full benefits. Further, it was held that delay in claiming pension is not a bar as it is a continuous cause of action. Background Facts The husband of respondent was initially appointed as a casual labourer in the Railways in the year 1978. In 1983, he was granted temporary status and continued to serve. While performing his official duties, he unfortunately died in February 1999 in a railway accident. He had rendered more than 21 years of total service at the time of his death, which included 16 years after obtaining temporary status. The respondent (wife of deceased employee) claimed family pension under the Family Pension Scheme, 1964. However, the Railway authorities denied the benefit on the ground that the deceased had not been screened for regularization before his death. Aggrieved by the denial, respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing an Original Application. The Tribunal allowed the claim and directed the authorities to grant family pension to respondent. Aggrieved by the Tribunal order dated 03.08.2018, the Union of India filed the writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. It was submitted by the petitioners that the respondent's husband was never screened for regularization during his service. It was argued that screening is required for becoming eligible under the Family Pension Scheme, 1964. The deceased employee died before the screening could take place. Therefore, the benefit of family pension could not have been allowed. On the other hand, it was submitted by the respondent that her husband was a casual labour working from the year 1978 onwards and had more than 21 years of service on the day when he died in a railway accident. It was contended that he died while performing the duties. Still, respondent has not been granted the benefit of family pension, which is an incorrect act on the part of the petitioners. It was further contended that order passed by the Tribunal granting the benefit is perfectly valid and legal. Findings of the Court It was observed by the Court that as per letter dated 26.10.1965 issued by Railway Board, a casual labourer is entitled for the grant of family pension under Family Pension Scheme, 1964 upon their absorption against a temporary post in regular establishment if they have put in six months as a casual labourer so as to get entitled for temporary status and one year on the subsequent temporary post. It was further observed that the casual service of the husband of respondent started in the year 1978 and he was granted the temporary status in the year 1983. He worked in service for a period of 16 years after getting the temporary status. Hence, the respondent was entitled for the grant of pensionary benefits under the Family Pension Scheme of 1964. It was further observed by the court that there was a period of 16 years available with the petitioners to screen the husband of respondent after granting him the temporary status in the year 1983. The petitioners never screened the husband during the period. Further, it was noticed that the husband of respondent died while being on duty and that too in a railway accident. It was held that denying the benefit of pension to respondent is totally arbitrary and illegal and contrary to the Family Pension Scheme of 1964. The case of Ram Kali vs. Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench and others relied upon by the petitioner, was observed by the court wherein it was held that the employee after being given temporary status, did not complete the required 10 years of qualifying service, so family pension was denied. It was held by the court that the husband of respondent was granted temporary status in 1983 and served for 16 years, which is much more than the required 10 years of qualifying service. Therefore, the judgment in Ram Kali's case does not apply to the present case. It was held by the court that after getting the temporary status, the husband of the respondent rendered 16 years of service. Merely that he was not screened by the petitioners during the period will not take away the right of respondent to get the benefit of pension, which is granted to a temporary employee after he/she has rendered 10 years of service. Further the argument of petitioner that there was delay by respondent in claiming pension, was rejected by the court by relying upon the judgment of Shri M.L. Patil (dead) through LRs vs. State of Goa and another wherein it ...

Family Pension For Railway Employees With 10+ Years Of Service Cannot Be Denied Due To Employer's Failure To conduct Screening: P&H High Court

Namdev Singh

Tags