NAGPUR: Allowing Central Railway's plea, the Nagpur bench of Bombay high
court has ruled that temporary employee is not eligible for family
pension without following procedure. "Though service of more than six
months as a 'substitute' employee was rendered, that would not be
sufficient to hold the respondent entitled for the family pension. The
procedure prescribed has not been shown to be followed and, hence, mere
acquisition of the status of a temporary employee would not make his
family eligible for the pension," a division bench comprising justices
Vasanti Naik and Atul Chandurkar held.
Hari Borkar was employed as a 'substitute' ladderman with the Indian
Railways on January 16, 1967, and after working for about
three-and-a-half years, he expired on August 12, 1970. His wife Kamlabai
sought settlement of dues, including family pension. However, the
railways informed her in 1996 that there was no provision for it since
her husband worked as 'substitute'. She then knocked Central
Administrative Tribunal (CAT) door which granted her pension from
November 12, 1994.
The railway challenged this order contending that there was no automatic
absorption/appointment to its service of a 'substitute' employee unless
the prescribed procedure was followed and therefore, Kamlabai was not
entitled for the pension.
Kamlabai, in reply, argued that if a 'substitute' completed six months
continuous service, the status of a temporary employee was attained, and
on that basis, their family members were entitled for the pension.
The petitioners, however, pointed out that the Indian Railway
Establishment Manual defines 'substitute' as persons engaged in the
railway establishments on a regular scale of pay and allowances
applicable to posts against which they are employed. It also clarifies
that the conferment of temporary status on a 'substitute' on completion
of six months continuous service would not entitle him to automatic
absorption/appointment to the service unless the person is selected in
the approved manner for appointment to the regular post.
"It is clear that mere completion of six months continuous service by a
'substitute' would not automatically have the effect of
absorption/appointment to railway service unless the procedure
prescribed for absorption/appointment has been followed," the court
held.
0 comments:
Post a Comment