A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The decision in Mala Devi v. Union of India & Ors., [2025] 8 S.C.R. 221 : 2025 INSC 855, resolves a recurring controversy under the Indian Railway Establishment Manual and the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 on whether a widow of a “substitute”/temporary railway servant who dies in harness is entitled to family pension despite the employee not completing ten years’ service or formal regularization. The Supreme Court, per Satish Chandra Sharma, J., answers in the affirmative by reading Rule 75(2)(a) in harmony with Rule 18(3) and Rule 1515 of the Manual to hold that one year of continuous service coupled with medical fitness and screening suffices to trigger family pension, regardless of regularization. It relies on Prabhavati Devi v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 752, distinguishes the High Court’s reliance on UHBVNL v. Surji Devi, (2008) 2 SCC 310, and emphasizes the salutary purpose of family pension to protect dependents. The Court sets aside the orders of the CAT, Patna and the Patna High Court, directs computation and payment of arrears and regular family pension within four months, and—invoking Article 142—awards an ex gratia of Rs. 5,00,000 to the appellant. The ratio clarifies that a temporary railway servant who has completed one year’s continuous service and died in harness confers entitlement on the family under the Family Pension Scheme, 1964, independent of formal regularization and notwithstanding a shortfall against the ten‑year threshold for other pensionary benefits.

Keywords: family pension; temporary railway servant; one year continuous service; Railway Pension Rules, 1993; Rule 75(2)(a); Rule 18(3); substitute status; screening; ex gratia under Article 142; Prabhavati Devi.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title – Mala Devi v. Union of India & Ors.

ii) Case Number – Civil Appeal No. 10672 of 2016

iii) Judgement Date – 16 July 2025

iv) Court – Supreme Court of India (reported in [2025] 8 S.C.R. 221)

v) Quorum – Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.

vi) Author – Satish Chandra Sharma, J.

vii) Citation – [2025] 8 S.C.R. 221 : 2025 INSC 855

viii) Legal Provisions Involved – Indian Railway Establishment Manual, r.1515; Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, rr.18(3), 75(2)(a); Constitution of India, Art.142.

ix) Judgments overruled by the Case (if any) – None indicated; prior orders of CAT, Patna and Patna High Court set aside.

x) Related Law Subjects – Service Law; Administrative Law; Labour & Industrial; Constitutional Remedies (Art.142).

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The appeal centers on the entitlement of a widow to family pension where her husband, a temporary railway employee who served as a substitute, died in harness with 9 years 8 months and 26 days of service. The CAT, Patna, dismissed her claim, opining that mere screening toward regularization “will not confer any right to pension”; the Patna High Court affirmed, citing Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Surji Devi, (2008) 2 SCC 310, to hold that in the absence of regularization and completion of 10 years’ qualifying service, family pension was inadmissible. The Supreme Court delineates the distinct normative structure under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993—particularly Rule 75(2)(a)—and the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, r.1515, which collectively treat substitutes who have attained temporary status and completed one year’s continuous service as within the mantle of the Family Pension Scheme, 1964 upon death in harness. The Court draws support from Prabhavati Devi v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 752, where a widow succeeded because the deceased had acquired temporary status and was working on a regular post. The narrative is not one of casual labor sans scrutiny; the employee had cleared medical examination, undergone screening, and had been deputed as Guard/Shuntman at Garhara by the Dy. Chief Yard Master. The Supreme Court thus reorients the inquiry from the ten‑year benchmark relevant to superannuation and invalid pensions toward the specific one‑year trigger for family pension under Rule 75, rejecting the High Court’s approach as incongruent with legislative intent and the scheme’s protective purpose.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

Om Prakash Maharaj was appointed as “Summer Waterman,” Danapur, on 15.10.1986, after clearing the requisite medical examinations. Over more than seven years of continuous service as a Substitute Porter, he cleared the Screening Test and, by instruction of the Dy. Chief Yard Master, Garhara, was deputed as a Guard/Shuntman. On 10.07.1996, he suffered a fatal accident while on duty and died in harness. He remained a substitute till his death, having completed 9 years 8 months and 26 days of continuous service. The widow (Mala Devi) received ex gratia to next of kin and was later appointed as a Substitute Gangman on compassionate grounds; her own employment was regularized after 120 days. When she sought family pension, the Railways refused, arguing that the deceased had neither completed 10 years’ qualifying service nor been regularized, and therefore family pension could not be granted. The CAT, Patna, dismissed her O.A./050/00276/2014 on 23.12.2015, observing that even reaching the stage of screening did not create a pensionary right. The Patna High Court, in CWJC No. 8524 of 2016 decided on 12.05.2016, relied on Surji Devi to uphold the denial, further noting the shortfall against 10 years. The present civil appeal (No. 10672 of 2016) followed, presenting the focused issue whether the statutory framework—Rule 1515 of the Manual and Rules 18(3) & 75(2)(a) of the 1993 Rules—mandates family pension once one year’s continuous service and temporary status are established in a death‑in‑harness scenario.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

• i. Whether, upon the undisputed completion of one year of continuous service and acquisition of temporary status through medical fitness and screening, the family of a railway servant who dies in harness is entitled to family pension under Rule 75(2)(a) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, irrespective of formal regularization?

• ii. Whether the ten‑year qualifying service requirement in Rule 18(1) for superannuation/invalid pensions can be invoked to deny family pension, or whether Rule 18(3) read with Rule 75 supplies a distinct and lower threshold?

• iii. Whether the High Court’s reliance on UHBVNL v. Surji Devi, (2008) 2 SCC 310, is apposite in the specialized railway pension framework, given the statutory text and the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Prabhavati Devi v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 752?

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The appellant grounded her claim in the specialized statutory architecture governing railway servants. She invoked Rule 1515 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual to submit that substitutes who have completed four months’ continuous service must “be afforded all the rights and privileges as may be admissible to temporary railway servants,” thereby recognizing a progression from substitute to temporary status upon minimal continuity. She further relied on Rule 18(3) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 and, crucially, Rule 75(2)(a), which expressly confers family pension if a railway servant dies after one year of continuous service (or even before one year if medically examined and declared fit on entry). On facts, the deceased had not only served 9 years 8 months and 26 days continuously but also cleared medical examination and screening and was deputed as Guard/Shuntman—features underscoring his temporary status for pensionary purposes. She distinguished the ten‑year yardstick in Rule 18(1) as applicable to superannuation/invalid pensions and not to family pension, which the statute places on a separate footing under Rule 75. She placed reliance on Prabhavati Devi v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 752, where a similarly situated widow benefited because the deceased had attained temporary status and died in harness. In essence, the appellant maintained that the denial grounded on lack of regularization and a supposed ten‑year minimum collapses in the face of the text of Rule 75 and the protective object of the Family Pension Scheme, 1964, triggered by one year’s continuity.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The respondents resisted the claim by positing that family pension presupposes a minimum of ten years’ qualifying service and regularization, neither of which existed for the deceased; thus, the widow could not claim the benefit. They asserted that the deceased had not been in continuous service as a substitute for more than four months to attract Rule 1515 and, therefore, could not be regarded as a temporary railway servant for pensionary purposes. They also contended that the appellant had not pressed the Rule 1515 / Rule 18(3) / Rule 75 construction before the forums below, and hence could not be permitted to advance it at the appellate stage. The High Court’s reliance on UHBVNL v. Surji Devi, (2008) 2 SCC 310, was invoked to argue that family pension is not admissible to the wife of an employee whose services were not regularized. The respondents therefore urged that the tribunal and the High Court correctly refused relief, given the deceased’s 9 years 8 months and 26 days of service and absence of formal absorption. They framed their stance as fidelity to the supposed ten‑year rule and urged judicial reluctance to extend pensionary entitlements where the statutory threshold was allegedly unmet.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

The case turns on a precise reading of Rule 1515 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (Vol. I), which commands that substitutes after four months’ continuous service shall be “afforded all the rights and privileges as may be admissible to temporary railway servants.” This textual bridge is vital: it reclassifies qualifying substitutes for benefits tied to temporary status. In the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, Rule 18(1) governs superannuation/invalid pensions after ten years of temporary service; but Rule 18(3) and Rule 75 are distinct—Rule 18(3) recognizes family pension and death gratuity on the same scale as admissible to a temporary railway servant in the event of death in harness, and Rule 75(2)(a) enacts the trigger: one year of continuous service (with an alternative route when medically examined and declared fit prior to appointment). Read conjointly, these provisions create a self‑contained family‑pension entitlement for temporary railway servants upon death in harness, independent of formal regularization and the ten‑year threshold that animates other pension heads. The Court’s analysis thus fastens upon Rule 75(2)(a) as the controlling norm for family pension and situates the deceased’s status—medically examined, screened, deputed, and continuously serving well beyond a year—within that statutory matrix.

I) JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court allows the appeal and recognizes the appellant’s entitlement to family pension anchored in the text and purpose of the railway pension code. The Court first recalls Prabhavati Devi v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 752, where relief issued to the widow of a railway servant who had acquired temporary status and died in harness, and transposes that ratio to the present facts—here, the deceased served 9 years 8 months and 26 days, cleared medical examination and screening, and was deputed as Guard/Shuntman, i.e., he had unquestionably crossed the one‑year threshold that Rule 75(2)(a) makes dispositive for family pension. The Court rejects the contrary approach that insists on ten years or regularization, emphasizing that Rule 75 “makes it further clear that the qualifying service for a temporary railway servant to be entitled for the grant of benefit of family pension is a continuous service of one year,” and that the benefit accrues “without any discrimination, whether the post was temporary or had been regularized.” It finds the High Court’s reliance on Surji Devi misaligned with this specialized scheme. Having so held, the Court directs that arrears of family pension be computed and paid, and regular family pension commence, within four months, and, mindful of the litigational delay and protective ethos of family pension, invokes Article 142 to award ex gratia Rs. 5,00,000. The orders of the CAT, Patna and the Patna High Court are set aside, and compliance is mandated within the stipulated period.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The governing principle is that family pension under Rule 75(2)(a) of the 1993 Rules is conditioned by one year of continuous service and not by ten years’ qualifying service or formal regularization. When death occurs in harness after one year of continuity, the family is entitled to the benefit, and the employee’s status as temporary (including as a qualifying substitute under Rule 1515 of the Manual) suffices. This ratio follows from the express words of Rule 75(2)(a)—read with Rule 18(3) which places the scale of benefits for a temporary railway servant’s death in harness on par with that of a permanent servant—and is fortified by the Court’s earlier holding in Prabhavati Devi, where the acquisition of temporary status and death in harness were decisive for conferring family pension. On facts, the deceased had achieved every predicate contemplated by the scheme: medical fitness on entry, screening, deputation to a guard/shunting post, and far more than one year of continuous service. Therefore, denial of family pension for want of regularization or a shortfall against ten years contradicts the statute’s text and purpose. The ratio thus cements a two‑track understanding: ten years relates to pensionary heads under Rule 18(1), whereas family pension is triggered by one year under Rule 75(2)(a).

b. OBITER DICTA

The Court remarks upon the broader legislative intent and social purpose of the railway pension code. It stresses that the objective is to extend the protective umbrella of family pension to dependents of employees who have served for a “considerable strength of time,” thereby cushioning them against destitution precipitated by death in harness. In doing so, the Court observes that this case is not about conferring pensionary status upon a mere casual labourer—a caution flagged in Clause 4.4 of the Master Circular—but about a substitute who had progressed through screening by a Screening Committee (Clause 5.1) and had been entrusted with operational duties till his final day. The dicta underscore that administrative insistence on rigid formalities such as regularization must yield to the clear normative command when the text and purpose of Rule 75 are satisfied, especially where the employee’s journey reflects the Railways’ own processes of evaluation, screening, and deployment. This policy‑inflected articulation encourages authorities to align practice with purpose and to avoid denials where the one‑year statutory trigger and temporary status are proved, thus preventing unjust outcomes from hyper‑technical readings.

c. GUIDELINES 

i. Where a railway servant (including a substitute who has attained temporary status under Rule 1515 of the Manual) dies in harness after completing one year of continuous service, the family is entitled to family pension under Rule 75(2)(a) of the 1993 Rules, irrespective of formal regularization. ii. Rule 18(1) (ten‑year threshold) pertains to superannuation/invalid benefits and shall not be deployed to defeat family‑pension claims governed specifically by Rule 18(3) read with Rule 75(2)(a). iii. Proof of medical examination and fitness at initial appointment, screening by the competent committee, and deputation/posting history may be relied upon to establish temporary status and continuity. iv. Authorities shall compute and disburse arrears and commence regular family pension expeditiously—here, within four months is directed—as soon as entitlement is judicially or administratively recognized. v. In cases of prolonged denial where equities are compelling, recourse to Article 142 to grant suitable ex gratia may be warranted to do complete justice, consistent with the protective purpose of family pension. These operational guides flow naturally from the Court’s interpretation and the reliefs molded in the judgment.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The ruling settles an important point in service jurisprudence for railway personnel: family pension under the 1993 Rules turns on Rule 75(2)(a)’s one‑year continuity trigger, not on the ten‑year barometer applicable to other pension heads. It also illustrates principled judicial engagement with the substitute‑to‑temporary pathway envisioned in Rule 1515 of the Manual, resisting rigid formalism around regularization when the employee’s work life shows medical fitness, screening, deputation, and long continuity. By reinstating the humane architecture of the Family Pension Scheme, 1964, and aligning with Prabhavati Devi, the Court underscores that the protective ambit of pension law must not be thwarted by technicalities where statutory text is clear. The direction to calculate arrears and commence regular family pension within four months ensures meaningful relief, while the tailored ex gratia of Rs. 5,00,000 under Article 142 recognizes hardship from long‑drawn litigation. Administratively, the decision counsels Railways and similar establishments to structure pension decisions around the correct rule sources, document screening/temporary status contemporaneously, and avoid conflating distinct qualifying conditions across pensionary heads. Normatively, it reinforces a purposive, text‑faithful approach to social‑security entitlements, preventing erosion of benefits for dependents when a breadwinner dies after sustained service within the system.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

i. Prabhavati Devi v. Union of India & Ors., [1995] Supp. 5 SCR 421 : AIR 1996 SC 752 (relied on).

ii. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. v. Surji Devi, [2008] 1 SCR 1042 : (2008) 2 SCC 310 (referred).

b. Important Statutes / Instruments Referred

i. Indian Railway Establishment Manual (Vol. I), r.1515.

ii. Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, rr.18(1), 18(3), 75(2)(a).

iii. Family Pension Scheme for Railway Servants, 1964 (as referenced in r.75).

iv. Constitution of India, Art.142 (ex gratia to do complete justice).