'Substitute employee can't claim
family pension against norms'
Vaibhav Ganjapure,TNN | Apr 25, 2014
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.
