MALA DEVIversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

                 [2025] 8 S.C.R. 221 : 2025 INSC 855

                               Mala Devi
                                    v.
                          Union of India & Ors.
                     (Civil Appeal No. 10672 of 2016)
                                16 July 2025
           [Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma,* JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant
       is entitled to family pension of her late husband, and whether a
       denial of such relief was justified.

                                 Headnotes†
       Indian Railway Establishment Manual & the Railway Pension
       Rules, 1993 – rr.75, 18(3) – Family pension – Entitlement to –
       Appellant’s husband, a temporary employee with the Eastern
       Indian Railways died in harness – Claim of the Appellant
       for family pension was denied on the ground that it is not
       admissible to the wife of an employee whose services were
       not regularized – Justifiability:
       Held: Unjustifiable – r.75 makes it clear that the qualifying
       service for a temporary railway servant to be entitled for the
       grant of benefit of family pension is a continuous service of one
       year – More so, this benefit of family pension is accrued to the
       family of the deceased railway servant who died in harness
       after completion of one year of continuous service, without any
       discrimination, whether the post was temporary or had been
       regularized – Appellant’s husband, after one year of continuous
       service, clearing his medical examination, screening and upon
       being subsequently deputed on a different post, acquired the
       status of a temporary railway servant for the purposes of the
       1993 Pension Rules and thus, became entitled to the benefit of
       family pension, as any other temporary railway servant – 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
       of the 1993 Pension Rules – Appellant entitled to family pension
       in light of the decision in Prabhavati Devi case – Family pension
* Author
222                                                           [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


       qua the deceased governed as per r.75 r/w r.18(3) – Impugned
       order of High Court and the order of the CAT, Patna, set aside –
       Ex-gratia amount of Rs.5,00,000/- awarded to the Appellant in
       exercise of power u/Art.142. [Paras 9-11, 13-15]

                               Case Law Cited
       Prabhavati Devi v. Union of India & Ors. [1995] Supp. 5 SCR
       421 : AIR 1996 SC 752 – relied on.
       Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. v. Surji Devi [2008] 1
       SCR 1042 : (2008) 2 SCC 310 – referred to.

                                  List of Acts
       Indian Railway Establishment Manual & the Railway Pension Rules,
       1993; Constitution of India.

                               List of Keywords
       Family pension; Benefit of family pension; Entitled to Benefit of
       family pension; Eastern Indian Railways; Temporary employee with
       the Eastern Indian Railways; Temporary employee died in harness;
       Temporary railway servant; Regularization; Railway servant died
       in harness; Summer Waterman; Guard/Shuntman; One year of
       continuous service; 10 years in service not completed; Minimum
       qualifying service; Ex-gratia amount awarded; Article 142 of the
       Constitution of India.

                              Case Arising From
       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10672 of 2016
       From the Judgment and Order dated 12.05.2016 of the High Court
       of Judicature at Patna in CWJC No. 8524 of 2016

                           Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Appellant:
       Brijesh Kumar, Ritik Malik, Ms. Geetanjali Setia, Mainsha Suri,
       Akhil Suri, Nishi Kant Singh, Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi.
       Advs. for the Respondents:
       S.D. Sanjay, A.S.G., Sachin Sharma, Amit Sharma, Anmol Chandan,
       Vinayak Sharma, Sachin Sharma, Harish Pandey, Alabhya Dhamija,
       Arvind Kumar Sharma.
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                          223

                        Mala Devi v. Union of India & Ors.


                    Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                   Judgment

      Satish Chandra Sharma, J.

1.    The Appellant herein is the widow of Late Shri Om Prakash Maharaj,
      a temporary employee with the Eastern Indian Railways, who died
      in harness on 10.07.1996, having completed 9 years 8 months and
      26 days of service from the date of his appointment on 15.10.1986.
2.    The Appellant had approached the Learned Central Administrative
      Tribunal vide O.A./050/00276/2014 seeking family pension from the
      date of death of her husband with all consequential benefits along
      with interest at the rate of 18% per annum, which was dismissed by
      the Learned Tribunal vide Judgment/Order dated 23.12.2015. Vide the
      said decision, the Learned Tribunal held that the claim of the Appellant
      was devoid of any merit, inasmuch as in absence of a document
      for regularization and permanent absorption of the husband of the
      Appellant, Appellant is not entitled for the grant of family pension.
      Even though, the deceased husband of the Appellant had reached
      the stage of screening for regularization of his employment with the
      Railways, the Learned Tribunal observed that “the screening will not
      confer any right to pension.”
3.    Aggrieved thereby, the Appellant preferred a W. P. (C) No. 8524
      of 2016 before the High Court of Judicature at Patna, which was
      ultimately dismissed vide Impugned Order dated 12.05.2016. In
      drawing reference to the decision in Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran
      Nigam Ltd. & Ors. v. Surji Devi1, the High Court observed that
      family pension is not admissible to the wife of an employee whose
      services were not regularized. It was further noted that since the
      service rendered by the husband of the Appellant is 9 years 8
      months and 26 days, it falls short of 10 years, which is the minimum
      qualifying service for grant of family pension. The said Order is under
      challenge before this Court.
4.    The factual conspectus of the captioned Appeal reveals that the
      deceased, Mr. Om Prakash Maharaj, was appointed “Summer
      Waterman”, Danapur, vide letter dated 15.10.1986 upon qualifying


1    (2008) 2 SCC 310
224                                                          [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       the medical examinations. Upon completion of more than 7 years of
       continuous service as a Substitute Porter, he cleared the Screening
       Test and was deputed at Garhara as a Guard/Shuntman upon
       instructions of the Dy. Chief Yard Master, Garhara. Unfortunately, on
       10.07.1996, the deceased met with a fatal accident while at work
       and died in harness.
5.     The deceased kept working as a ‘substitute’ till his death and had
       admittedly been in continuous service for 9 years 8 months and 26
       days. Upon his demise, the Appellant wife has received ex-gratia
       to the next kin of deceased and was subsequently appointed as a
       Substitute Gangman on compassionate grounds, and the employment
       was regularized after completion of 120 days. The controversy arose
       when the Appellant wife sought family pension, which has been
       denied by the Railways on the premise that since the employment
       of the deceased had not been regularized, the question of family
       pension does not arise.
6.     It was argued on behalf of the Appellant that Rule 1515 of the Indian
       Railway Establishment Manual confers upon the Substitutes, certain
       rights and privileges as may be admissible to temporary railway
       servants, from time to time, on completion of four (04) months of
       continuous service. In the same breadth, reliance was also placed
       on Rule 18(3) Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993 which extends
       benefit of family pension and death gratuity in the event of death
       in harness of a temporary railway servant on the same scale of a
       temporary railway servant. The said Rule read in conjunction with
       Rule 75(2)(a) of the Pension Rules, 1993 also confers upon the family
       of a railway servant, family pension (hereinafter in this rule referred
       to as family pension) under the Family Pension Scheme for Railway
       Servants, 1964, in the event a railway servant dies after competition
       of one year of continuous service. Indubitably, the deceased was in
       service for 9 years 8 months and 26 days till the date of his death,
       and in terms of the said provisions, has also crossed the necessary
       threshold to be granted the status of a temporary railway servant.
       The relevant provisions are reproduced as under:
                 “Indian Railway Establishment Manual-Vol-I”
            “1515- Rights and privileges admissible to the
            Substitutes—Substitutes should be afforded all the rights
            and privileges as may be admissible to temporary railway
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                          225

                      Mala Devi v. Union of India & Ors.


           servants, from time to time on completion of four months
           continuous service. Substitute school teachers may,
           however, be afforded temporary status after they have put
           in continuous service of three months and their services
           and their services should be treated as continuous for all
           purposes except seniority on their eventual absorption
           against regular posts after selection.
           “Railway Pension Rules, 1993”
           18. Pensionary, terminal or death benefits to temporary
           railway servant. - (1) A temporary railway servant who
           retires on superannuation or on being declared permanently
           incapacitated for further railway service by the appropriate
           medical authority after having rendered temporary
           service not less than ten years shall be eligible for grant
           of superannuation, invalid pension, retirement gratuity
           and family pension at the same scale as admissible to
           permanent railway servant under these rules.
           ________
           Rule 75:
           ………
           (2) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (18) and without
           prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-rule(4), where
           a railway servant dies,— (a) after completion of one year of
           continuous service; or (b) before completion of one year of
           continuous service, provided the deceased railway servant
           concerned immediately prior to his appointment to the
           service or post was examined by the appropriate medical
           authority and declared fit by that authority for railway
           service; or (c) after retirement from service and was on the
           date of death in receipt of a pension, or compassionate
           allowance, referred to in these rules, the family of the
           deceased shall be entitled to family pension (hereinafter
           in this rule referred to as family pension) under the Family
           Pension Scheme for Railway Servants, 1964, the amount
           of which shall be determined at a uniform rate of thirty per
           cent. of basic pay subject to a minimum of three thousand
           and five hundred rupees per mensem and a maximum of
           twenty-seven thousand rupees per mensem.”
226                                                            [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


7.     Per contra, it was the contention of the Respondents that the
       deceased had not completed 10 years in service which is the
       minimum qualifying service for the grant of family pension and as
       he was also not regularized, the question of grant of family pension
       does not arise. It was further averred that the deceased had also not
       been in continuous service as a substitute for more than four (04)
       months, and the hence the status of a temporary railway servant for
       the purposes of grant of family pension cannot be extended to him.
       The Counsel for the Respondents has argued that the argument in
       reference to Rule 1515 of the Railway Establishment Manual and
       the Railway Pension Rules, 1993 was not made by the Appellant
       before the courts below and cannot be taken at this stage of the
       proceedings.
8.     We have heard the submissions on behalf of both the parties. The
       intervention of this Court is limited to the question whether in the
       facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant is entitled to
       family pension of her late husband, and whether a denial of such
       relief is justified.
9.     At the outset, we refer to the ratio in the case of Prabhavati Devi v.
       Union of India & Ors.2 whereby this Court had extended the relief
       of family pension of the widow of the deceased railway servant, who
       had died in harness. It was held that the orders of the Tribunal to
       deny family pension to the widow and children of the deceased were
       unsustainable as the deceased had acquired the temporary status
       and was already working at his regular post at the time of his death.
       In the present case however, the deceased was absorbed in service
       as a substitute in 1986, and served for 9 years 8 months and 26
       days, just 3 months short of completing the threshold of a decade
       in service. After one year of continuous service, clearing his medical
       examination and screening, and upon being subsequently deputed
       on a different post, on the instructions of Dy. CYM, Garhara, he
       acquired the status of a temporary railway servant for the purposes
       of the Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993 and hence became
       entitled to the benefit of family pension, as any other temporary
       railway servant. Hence, in light of the decision in Prabhavati Devi
       (supra), the petitioner is certainly entitled for grant of family pension.


2    AIR 1996 SC 752
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                         227

                    Mala Devi v. Union of India & Ors.


10. Rule 75 of Railway Pension Rules, 1993, makes it further clear that
    the qualifying service for a temporary railway servant to be entitled for
    the grant of benefit of family pension is a continuous service of one
    year. More so, this benefit of family pension is accrued to the family
    of the deceased railway servant who died in harness after completion
    of one year of continuous service, without any discrimination, whether
    the post was temporary or had been regularized. On this ground alone,
    the denial of family pension accrued to the Appellant is unjustifiable.
11. We have further carefully examined the facts, and legal principles
    applicable in the present case, and we find that 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 of the Indian Railway
    Establishment Manual & the Railway Pension Rules, 1993. The
    salutary purpose of the rules thereunder is to extend the benefit of
    family pension to the families of those servants who have served for
    a considerable strength of time. The present case is not a case of a
    casual labourer being simply accorded a temporary status, without
    any scrutiny or examination as cautioned against in Clause 4.4. of
    the Master Circular issued by the Ministry of Railways. The said
    Circular also gives a clear mandate in clause 5.1 that substitutes who
    have acquired temporary status were to be screened by a Screening
    Committee, a stage which was admittedly passed by the deceased. It
    is an admitted factum that the deceased had reached the necessary
    stage of scrutiny/screening for regularization of the post, and had
    been carrying out his services, literally till his last breath.
12. In the light of above statutory provisions governing the field, this
    Court is of the considered opinion that the Appellant is entitled for
    grant of family pension along with arrears of family pension.
13. For the purpose of computation of family pension in the present
    case, the family pension qua the deceased shall be governed as
    per Rule 75 r/w Rule 18(3) Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993
    which extends benefit of family pension and death gratuity in the
    event of death in harness of a temporary railway servant on the
    same scale of a temporary railway servant. The Respondents shall
    calculate the arrears of family pension and shall pay the arrears as
    well as shall pay regular family pension to the Appellant within a
    period of four months.
228                                                      [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                             Supreme Court Reports


14. Resultantly, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances
    of the case, the plight of the Appellant who has been pursuing the
    litigation seeking family pension since 2014, and the salient purpose
    of a family pension to serve dependents tide over the crisis, we
    further deem it appropriate exercise of our power under Article 142
    of the Constitution of India, and award ex-gratia amount of Rs.
    5,00,000/- to the Appellant.
15. In light thereof, the Appeal is allowed. The Impugned Order dated
    12.05.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna,
    and the Order dated 23.12.2015 passed by the Learned Central
    Administrative Tribunal, Patna, are set aside. The Respondents are
    directed to ensure compliance within four months. Applications if
    any, stand disposed of.

       Result of the case: Appeal allowed.




       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey