Smt. Sanju Devi vs Union of India and Others

Shri Govind Saran has accepted notice on behalf of all the respondents. He prays for and is allowed four weeks'' time to file counter affidavit. The petitioner will have one week thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit.

List on 28.2.2012.

The petitioner is widow of late Subhash, who died on 07.10.2008 serving as Substitute Parcel Porter. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad dismissed the Original Application for treating the petitioner''s husband to be regularised posthumously in pursuance to the judgment of Supreme Court in National Federation of Railways Porters, Vendors and Bearers Vs. Union of India and others, .

A review petition was filed relying upon a judgment of the Principal Bench of the Tribunal in Original Application No. 1447 of 2005 (Smt. Manorama vs. Union of India and others) dated 28.1.2009 in which the Principal Bench had treated the late husband of Smt. Manorama to be regularised, for which the process was started and a policy was laid down in 2005. After distinguishing the Uma Devi''s case the Tribunal allowed the regularisation as deemed to have been allowed posthumously.

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition Nos. 2904 and 2905 of 2007, on 28.1.2009, and that the Supreme Court, in the facts of that case dismissed the SLP on 26.2.2010.

The Tribunal has relied upon a later judgment of the Supreme Court in Rama Devi vs. Union of India SLP No. 19281 of 2007 dated 7.1.2009, which reads as follows:-

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

We are of the opinion that in view of Clause 26 of the Railway Services Pension Rules, 1993 (for short ''the Rules), a substitute cannot be deemed to be a railway servant unless he is absorbed in the regular railway service. Admittedly, petitioner''s husband, who had been appointed as a substitute, was never absorbed on regular basis. Hence, petitioner''s husband cannot be treated as a railway servant. Consequently, this SLP is dismissed.

Prima facie we do not find any legal error in the view expressed by the Central Administrative Tribunal at Allahabad that the regularisation could not have been allowed posthumously to treat the widow of a substitute Parcel Porter, to be entitled to family pension under the Railway Service Pension Rules, 1993, but since this question of law may arise in many other cases, we find it appropriate to consider and adjudicate the issue.