WP.CT/5/2019 of UNION OF INDIA & ORS Vs SANDHYA CHAKRABORTY on 17 September 2026

1. Heard. CAN Application is allowed. The Petition is restored and taken up for final hearing by the consent of the parties.

In Re: WP.CT No.5 of 2019

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

3. By this Petition, the Petitioner has put forth the following prayer:- ‘(a) A Writ in the nature of Mandamus do issue by seeing aside the Order dated 17.7.2018 passed in O.A. No.318 of 2016 by the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench.’

4. We have considered the strenuous submissions of the Learned Counsel for the respective sides and with their assistance, we have gone through the Petition paper book.

5. The dates and sequence of events can be summarised as under:- (a) The husband of the Respondent was working as a Porter Master/CP, Eastern Railway. Unfortunately, he died on 08.01.1965, after having put in temporary service from 24.04.1962, till his demise on 08.10.1965. It is an admitted position that he was working in the temporary service of the Railways for the afore stated period.

(b) The original Applicant, who is the widow of the deceased employee, initially made representations to the employer for seeking pensionary benefits. Having failed in convincing the employer, she preferred Original Application No.1182 of 1996, which was disposed off on 17.03.1999, by the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) with a direction to the widow to submit certificates from two Gazetted Officers before the Employer within one month. The Employer was directed to pay ex gratia pension to the widow from 01.01.1986.

(c) The order of the Learned Tribunal was assailed in Writ Petition No.275 of 2009 which was disposed off on 03.04.2013, by an Order permitting the widow to approach the authorities. The Railway authorities were directed to decide the claim of the widow within 12 weeks.

(d) The authorities passed a Speaking Order rejecting the claim of the widow on 16.09.2013. The widow, therefore, approached the Learned Tribunal in O.A. No.696 of 2014. By an order dated 06.04.2015, it was concluded that the Railways have evidently applied the Railway Rules to oust the claim of the widow, instead of considering the matter in the light of Prabhavati Devi vs. Union of India and Others, (1996) 7 SCC 27. The order of the Railways was quashed and set aside and the matter was remitted to the employer for a fresh consideration.

(e) By a Speaking Order dated 16.06.2015, the claim of the widow was again held to be unsustainable and was once again rejected.

(f) The widow again approached the Learned Tribunal by filing O.A. No.1045 of 2015. By a Judgment dated 14.10.2015, the Learned Tribunal relied upon Prabhavati Devi (supra) and considering the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, concluded that the Railways had failed to consider that the Applicant is identically circumstanced as like Prabhavati Devi. It was also concluded that the observations of the employer in the Speaking Order dated 16.06.2015, were contrary to the observations made by the Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation and keeping in view Prabhavati Devi (supra), the matter was again remitted to Divisional Railway Manager to pass a fresh order.

(g) Again, by a Speaking Order (undated) served upon the widow with a covering letter dated 20.01.2016, the D.R.M. recorded that Railways are not in a position to extend any benefit as prayed for since the relevant Railway Pension Rules do not empower to extend the pensionary benefit to the Applicant.

(h) The widow, who is said to be 86 years of age (the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is instructed to say that she is 90 years of age) again approached the Tribunal vide O.A. No.318 of 2016. By a Judgment dated 17.07.2018, the Tribunal relied upon Prabhavati Devi (supra) as well as the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in L. Robert D’Souza vs. The Executive Engineer, Southern Railway and Another, AIR 1982 SC 854 and S.K. Mastan Bee vs. General Manager, South Central

Railway and Another, (2003) 1 SCC 184 and quashed the impugned order and allowed the O.A.

6. It is in the above backdrop that we considered the strenuous submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner-Railway/Union of India. Despite his attempt to convince us, we find that the Railways cannot make out a case against the crystallised position of law laid down in Prabhavati Devi (supra), L. Robert D’Souza(supra) and S.K. Mastan Bee (supra).

7. The Petitioner-Union of India does not dispute that the deceased employee had worked for more than three years as a temporary. Para 2311 pertaining to provident fund and gratuity under Chapter XXIII

– Terms and Conditions Applicable to Railway Servants and Substitutes in Temporary Service of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, clearly entitles all temporary Railway servants, including Workshop staff, to subscribe to the fund from the date they complete one year of service. Para 2311(3)(b) also prescribes that the widow/widower/minor children of a temporary Railway servant who dies while in service after putting in not less than one continuous year (qualifying service), would be eligible for family pension under Para 801 of the Manual of Railway Pension Rules.

8. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has strenuously canvassed that substitutes will not get a right under the Rules to claim any such benefit. Therefore, the widow or widower of such an Employee would not be entitled for any such benefits. The Learned Counsel for the widow is right in pointing out Para 2315 which defines ‘Substitutes’ as being persons engaged in Indian Railway Establishment on regular scales of pay and allowances applicable to the posts on which they are employed.

9. He then points out Para 2318 along with the Note there below, which indicates the rights and privileges admissible to Substitutes. It enshrines that Substitutes should be afforded all the rights and privileges as may be admissible to a temporary Railway servant, from time to time on completion of six months’ continuous service. For ready reference, we are reproducing Para 2318 along with Note, herein under:- ‘2318. Rights and privileges admissible to the Substitutes: -Substitutes should be afforded all the rights and privileges as may be admissible to temporary railway servants, from time to time on completion of six 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 should be treated as continuous for all purposes except seniority on their eventual absorption against regular posts after selection.

NOTE:-The conferment of temporary status on the Substitutes on completion of six months continuous service will not entitle them to automatic absorption/appointment to railway service unless they are in turn for such appointment on the basis of their position in select lists and/or they are selected in the approved manner for appointment to regular railway posts’.

10. It is, thus, clear that the deceased after completing six months’ in his tenure as a substitute Railway employee, assumed the status of a temporary Railway servant having put in more than one year of temporary service as a substitute. In the light of the afore stated provisions that squarely apply to this case, we do not find that the impugned judgment of the Tribunal could be branded as being perverse or erroneous. We find this case to be of such nature that a second view is also not possible. Even if a second view was possible, the impugned judgment could not be branded as perverse in the light of Syed Yakoob vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan, AIR 1964 SC 477 and Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chandra Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675.

11. As such, this Petition sans merit and is dismissed. Rule is discharged.

12. Needless to state, since we have sustained the Judgment and Order of the Tribunal and since the Petitioner before us has not implemented the same and keeping in view that the widow is now 90 years of age, we direct the Petitioner-Union of India to implement the directions of the Tribunal within a period of 45 days from the date of uploading this order on the official website of the Calcutta High Court. (Arijit Banerjee, J.) (Ravindra V. Ghuge) Chief Justice