SMT PRAFULLABA CHANDRASINH JADEJA vs WESTERN RAILWAY on 8 October 2026

ORDER

Per: Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Kumar, Member (A)

1. Applicant has filed the present OA, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, seeking following reliefs:

(A) The Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to declare the impugned decision of the respondent whereby the applicant is denied the benefits available to temporary status employee and minimum of pay scale with permissible allowances payable to class IV employee as arbitrary, unjust, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and be pleased to set aside the same.

(B) Be pleased to declare the impugned decision of the respondent asking from the application qualification of SSC as unjust, arbitrary being discriminatory violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India and be pleased to quash and set aside the same and direct the respondent to grant all the benefits of class-IV employee to the applicant ignoring the condition of SSC pass put by the respondent no.2.

(C) Any other and further relief as the Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit and proper be granted in the interest of justice. 1.1 The original applicant passed away on 04.01.2022. His wife has filed MA No. 196/2022 for bringing legal heir on record and the same was allowed by this Tribunal vide order dated 04.07.2022. Accordingly, widow of the applicant is taken on record as applicant. 2.1 The applicant was initially engaged by the Western Railway as a casual labourer/hot weather waterman and had been working under the respondents since 1980. His services were terminated on 06.04.1986. Aggrieved by the termination, the applicant raised an industrial dispute before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, (CGIT), Ahmedabad.. 2.2 The learned CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad, vide Award dated 31.01.2013 in Reference No. 1230/2004, held P ANUKUMA

::3 :: OA No. 171/2018

that the termination of the applicant was illegal and unjustified. The respondents were directed to reinstate him on his original post of Hot Weather Waterman or an equivalent post, with continuity of service, grant of temporary status and 50% back wages with interest at 9%. 2.3 As the Award was not implemented, the applicant approached the Hon’ble High Court by filing contempt proceedings. During the proceedings, the officers of the respondents appeared before the Hon’ble High Court and tendered an unconditional apology and assured compliance with the Award. Thereafter, the respondents issued an order dated 20.10.2015 engaging the applicant as a substitute Safaiwala at Okha against a vacant post. 2.4 Subsequently, the respondents granted the applicant temporary status with effect from 24.02.2016, after completion of 120 days of continuous service. However, according to the applicant, the respondents did not extend to him the consequential benefits of continuity of service, proper pay fixation and the pay and allowances applicable to a Class-IV employee. 2.5 The applicant contends that although he was performing the duties of a Safaiwala/Class-IV employee, he was being paid only about Rs.9,121/- per month, whereas similarly placed employees were receiving approximately Rs.18,812/- per month. He therefore claimed the minimum of the applicable pay scale with permissible allowances and other consequential benefits. 2.6 The applicant made representations to the respondents seeking the benefits claimed by him. However, vide communications dated 24.11.2017, the respondents informed P ANUKUMA

::4 :: OA No. 171/2018

him that he had been engaged as a fresh-face substitute/trainee Safaiwala and did not possess the prescribed educational qualification of SSC. It was stated that he would be entitled to regularisation and the higher pay scale only after acquiring the prescribed qualification. 2.7 Aggrieved by the denial of the aforesaid benefits, particularly the minimum pay and allowances applicable to a Class-IV employee and the benefits flowing from his temporary status and continuity of service, the applicant has approached this Tribunal. He has challenged the respondents’ decision as arbitrary and discriminatory and has sought directions for extending the benefits claimed by him. 2.8 The applicant has also relied upon the Award of the Labour Court and contended that, having been granted reinstatement with continuity of service and temporary status, the respondents could not deny him the consequential benefits merely on the ground that he did not possess SSC

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was actually performing the duties of Safaiwala, a Group- D/Class-IV post, but was being paid only the minimum of the lower pay scale of Rs.4440-7440 without Grade Pay. 3.1

Learned counsel contended that the respondents had wrongly relied upon the applicant’s alleged lack of educational qualification to deny him the benefit of continuity of service, proper pay fixation, arrears and other consequential benefits. It was submitted that the respondents’ stand that the applicant's service would commence only after he acquired SSC qualification was contrary to the specific directions P ANUKUMA

::5 :: OA No. 171/2018

contained in the Labour Court’s Award granting continuity of service and temporary status.

3.2 Learned counsel also submitted that the applicant could not be equated with a fresh-face trainee appointed through a normal recruitment process, as his engagement was made in compliance with the judicial directions. The respondents, having accepted and implemented the Award by engaging the applicant and granting him temporary status, could not selectively deny the other consequential benefits arising therefrom. 3.3

In this regard, learned counsel for the applicant relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mala Devi Vs Union of India & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 10672 of 2016, decided on 16.07.2025, wherein it held that family pension is admissible to the widow of a railway servant with Temporary Status who had died in harness after about 9 years and 8 months of continuous service. It also held that for a temporary railway servant the qualifying service for family pension under Rule 75(2)(a) of Railway Service Pension, Rules, 1993 is one years of continuous service and that 10 years requirement applies only to the superannuation and invalid pension.

4. Per contra, respondents have filed their reply and denied the claim of the applicant. 4.1

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant’s claim was misconceived and contrary to the applicable Railway Board instructions. It was submitted that the applicant was engaged as a Fresh Face Substitute (Trainee) Safaiwala pursuant to the Award of the learned CGIT-cum-Labour Court and was placed in the minimum of the pay scale of Rs.4440-7440 without Grade Pay, as he did P ANUKUMA

::6 :: OA No. 171/2018

not possess the prescribed minimum educational qualification of SSC or ITI. 4.2 Learned counsel submitted that the Award of the Labour Court had already been duly complied with. The applicant was engaged as Safaiwala, which was treated as an equivalent post, and the 50% back wages with interest at 9% had also been paid to him. Therefore, according to the respondents, there was no further direction in the Award requiring his regularisation, absorption or placement in the regular pay scale. 4.3 Learned counsel further relied upon the Railway Board’s instructions dated 09.12.2011 and submitted that persons appointed in exceptional circumstances without possessing the prescribed educational qualification could be engaged as trainees. Such trainees were entitled to the minimum of the applicable pay band without Grade Pay during the training period, and the regular pay band and Grade Pay would become available only after acquisition of the prescribed

4.4 It was argued that the applicant had not been selected through the regular recruitment process or Railway Recruitment Board. Therefore, he had no vested right to claim absorption against the post or parity with employees who had been regularly recruited after undergoing the prescribed selection procedure. His regular service, according to the respondents, could be counted only after his placement in PB-1 Rs.5200- 20200 with Grade Pay of Rs.1800/-. 4.5 Learned counsel also submitted that the grant of temporary status with effect from 24.02.2016 did not confer any right of regularisation or absorption upon the applicant. The memorandum granting temporary status itself recorded that P ANUKUMA

::7 :: OA No. 171/2018

the applicant had no right of absorption against the post and that his regular service would be counted only after his placement in the regular pay scale. 4.6 Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant was not similarly situated to those employees who had been recruited through the Railway Recruitment Board in PB-1 with Grade Pay of Rs.1800/-. Those employees had been selected through the prescribed recruitment procedure and possessed the requisite qualifications, whereas the applicant had been engaged as a trainee substitute in compliance with the Labour Court’s Award. Hence, the claim of equal pay and other consequential benefits was not sustainable. 4.7 Learned counsel denied the allegation of arbitrariness, discrimination or violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and submitted that the applicant was being paid the scale to which he was eligible under the applicable rules and instructions. It was further submitted that the applicant had not acquired the prescribed SSC qualification and, therefore, his claim for placement in PB-1, arrears of wages and other benefits could not be accepted. 4.8 Learned counsel accordingly submitted that the respondents had implemented the Labour Court’s Award in its true letter and spirit and that the applicant was not entitled to any further relief. The OA, being devoid of merit, was therefore liable to be dismissed. 4.9 Learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that the facts in the present case are different than the judgment cited by the applicant.

5. Applicant has filed rejoinder and reiterated the submissions made in the OA. P ANUKUMA

::8 :: OA No. 171/2018

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

7. The undisputed position is that the applicant had initially worked as a Hot Weather Waterman under the respondents and that his services were terminated on 06.04.1986. The said termination was subsequently held to be illegal and unjustified by the learned CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad, vide Award dated 31.01.2013 in Reference No. 1230/2004. The Labour Court directed the respondents to reinstate the applicant on his original post or an equivalent post, with continuity of service, grant of temporary status and 50% back wages with interest at 9%.

8. In compliance with the aforesaid Award, the respondents engaged the applicant as a Substitute Safaiwala at Okha with effect from 22.10.2015. Thereafter, upon completion of 120 days of continuous service, the respondents themselves granted temporary status to the applicant with effect from 24.02.2016. The relevant memorandum issued by the respondents records that the applicant was engaged pursuant to the Award of the learned CGIT-cum-Labour Court and was thereafter granted temporary status.

9. The following points arise for determination:

(i) Whether the applicant after reinstatement pursuant to the Award with direction for granting him continuity of service and having been granted temporary status, the respondents could deny him the consequential benefits merely on the ground that he did not possess the prescribed educational qualification of SSC/ITI. P ANUKUMA

::9 :: OA No. 171/2018

(ii) What relief if any, follows in favour of the substituted applicant (the widow), as the original applicant had died on 04.01.2022.

10. In this regard, the stand of the respondents is that the applicant was engaged as a Fresh Face Substitute (Trainee) Safaiwala and, being deficient in the prescribed educational qualification, was entitled only to the minimum of the pay scale of Rs.4440-7440 without Grade Pay. The respondents have relied upon the Railway Board’s instructions to contend that the regular pay scale and Grade Pay would become admissible only after the applicant acquired the prescribed

11. We are unable to accept the aforesaid contention of the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The applicant is not claiming the benefit as a person who had independently entered service through the normal recruitment process. His engagement was made pursuant to the Award of the Labour Court, which had specifically directed his reinstatement with continuity of service and grant of temporary status. The respondents, having accepted and acted upon the said Award by reinstating the applicant and granting him temporary status, cannot thereafter treat the applicant as a wholly fresh entrant for the purpose of denying the consequential benefits flowing from the Award.

12. It is also significant that the respondents themselves treated the post of Safaiwala as the equivalent post on which the applicant was reinstated pursuant to the Award. The respondents have further admitted that the applicant was continuously working as Safaiwala and that temporary status was granted to him with effect from 24.02.2016. Thus, the nature of duties actually discharged by the applicant and the P ANUKUMA

::10 :: OA No. 171/2018

factum of his engagement pursuant to the judicial Award are not in dispute.

13. The plea of the respondents that the applicant’s past service cannot be counted in the absence of specific direction of the Labour Court granting continuity of service cannot be accepted. The respondents cannot, by relying upon the conditions applicable to a fresh trainee appointment, dilute or nullify the benefit of continuity of service already granted to the applicant by the competent court.

14. We also find substance in the contention of the applicant that he was performing the duties of Safaiwala and was being paid only the minimum of the lower pay scale without Grade Pay, whereas he claimed the pay and allowances attached to the post. The respondents have sought to distinguish the applicant from regularly recruited Safaiwalas on the ground that those employees had undergone the regular selection process. However, such distinction cannot, by itself, defeat the specific rights flowing from the Award of the Labour Court in favour of the applicant, particularly when the applicant was reinstated against an equivalent post and was subsequently granted temporary status.

15. The respondents have relied upon the Railway Board instructions dated 09.12.2011 concerning engagement of persons without the prescribed educational qualification as trainees. However, in the present case, the applicant’s engagement arose out of an Award directing his reinstatement with continuity of service and temporary status. Therefore, the said instructions cannot be applied in a manner which defeats or substantially curtails the specific relief granted to the applicant by the Labour Court. The P ANUKUMA

::11 :: OA No. 171/2018

respondents themselves implemented the Award by engaging the applicant and granting him temporary status.

16. As regards the respondents’ contention that the applicant has no right of absorption or regularisation, we find that the controversy before us is not confined merely to the question of regularisation. The applicant has primarily sought the consequential benefits arising from the continuity of service and temporary status granted pursuant to the Labour Court’s Award, including appropriate pay fixation and admissible pay and allowances. The respondents cannot deny such consequential benefits merely by describing the applicant as a fresh-face trainee.

17. We also take note of the fact that the respondents had already paid the applicant 50% back wages with interest pursuant to the Award. The respondents have therefore themselves recognised and acted upon the monetary consequences of the Award. The remaining benefits arising from the same Award are required to be considered in the proper perspective and in accordance with the directions contained therein.

18. The original applicant died on 04.01.2022 while continuing engagement having held temporary status since 24.02.2016. Learned counsel for the applicant relies on Mala Devi (Supra). The respondents submit that the facts are different but have not pointed out any material distinction. In the light of the Mala Devi’s judgment, the widow’s claim to family pension is therefore requires to be considered in light of the judgment regarding the continuity of service directed in the award.

19. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered view that the respondents were not justified in denying the P ANUKUMA

::12 :: OA No. 171/2018

claim of applicant for grant of the consequential benefits flowing from the Award dated 31.01.2013 solely on the ground that he did not possess SSC/ITI qualification.

20. Thus, we quash and set aside the impugned communications dated 24.11.2017 and 01.02.2018 to the extent they deny the applicant the consequential benefits arising from the Award dated 31.01.2013 on the ground of his educational

21. Therefore, the respondents are directed to reconsider and extend to the applicant the consequential benefits flowing from the Award dated 31.01.2013, including appropriate pay fixation, admissible pay and allowances and consequential monetary benefits upto 04.01.2022 payable to his widow as legal heir and to consider her claim for family pension and fix pension for his widow by taking into account the continuity of service and temporary status granted to him, in accordance with the applicable rules and the terms of the Award. The respondents shall undertake the aforesaid exercise and grant all benefits within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

22. Accordingly, the OA is allowed in terms indicated above. MA pending if any, also stands disposed of.

23. There shall be no order as to costs.

(Sanjiv Kumar)

(Jayesh V Bhairavia)

Member (A)

Member (J)

//Anu// P ANUKUMA