# U.O.I. & Ors v. Smt. Kamla Devi

- **Citation:** (2026) 3 ILRA 270
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-03-11
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 4375 of 2025
- **Bench:** Alok Mathur, Amitabh Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/u-o-i-ors-v-smt-kamla-devi-54337
- **Pages:** 7

## Text

270 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

11. In view of the reasons recorded above and on the facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court is of the considered opinion that without initiating disciplinary proceedings and without
affording opportunity of hearing, the impugned order dated 16.2.2008 has been passed.

12. Accordingly, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed with all consequential benefits.

13. However, the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to continue on Class IV
posts and to pay him salary regularly month by month.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 270
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 11.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.
THE HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ A No. 4375 of 2025

U.O.I. & Ors. ...Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Kamla Devi ...Respondent

Issue(s) for consideration
 Whether the Circular dated 03.07.2002, applies to the cases which were pending at the time of its issuance,
including those where the employees had died prior to 03.07.2002 but whose dues had not yet been settled?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - Differential treatment cannot be permitted by extending the benefit of family
pension to casual labourers of Northern Railway on one hand and denying the same benefit to
casual labourers of North Eastern Railway, who are working under the same employer, i.e., the
Railway Board under the Ministry of Railways. (Para 16)

B. The Circular dated 03.07.2002, applies to the cases which were pending at the time of its
issuance, including those where the employees had died prior to 03.07.2002 but whose dues had
not yet been settled. The husband of the respondent died on 18.03.1991, whereas the Circular is dated
03.07.2002. An argument has been advanced by the petitioner that the said Circular is prospective in nature
and cannot be applied in the case of the respondent. The said argument is misconceived, devoid of merit and
rejected as a plain reading of the Circular dated 03.07.2002 shows that it was issued in response to cases
received from various divisions seeking clarification regarding payment of settlement dues to casual labourers
who had been screened but had expired before issuance of the panel. (Para 17)

The judgment and order dated 28.08.2024 passed by the learned CAT, Lucknow, in O.A. No. 332/00315/2019
is just and proper and should not be interfered with. (Para 18)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited
3 All. U.O.I. & Ors. Vs. Smt. Kamla Devi
271
Union of India Vs. Munshi Ram, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1493 (Para 15)

List of Keywords
 employee, family pension, regular, claim, dependent, similarly situated, compassionate appointment,
temporary.

Appearances for Parties
For Petitioner(s): Ajit Kumar Dwivedi
For Respondent(s): Praveen Kumar, Sudhanshu Srivastava

(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J. &
Hon'ble Amitabh Kumar Rai, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ajit Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioenrs and Sri Praveen Kumar,
learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for challenging the order dated
28.08.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow in O.A. No.
332/00315/2019, Smt. Kamla Devi vs. Union of India and others, whereby the learned Tribunal has
set aside the order dated 16.01.2017 rejecting the claim of the respondent for family pension with
regard to the death of her husband, Late Ram Asrey, who died on 18.03.1991. The claim of the
respondent for family pension was rejected vide order dated 16.01.2017 on the ground that Late
Ram Asrey, husband of the respondent, was not a regular employee and hence, as per the circular
dated 04.05.1984 of the Railway Board, the dependents of such employees are not entitled to
family pension.

3. The brief facts are that Late Ram Asrey, husband of the respondent, was initially engaged
on the post of Seasonal Waterman and worked for short periods intermittently since 01.05.1979. In
the year 1986, Late Ram Asrey (husband of the respondent) moved a representation dated
11.08.1986 for grant of pay scale Rs. 196?232 like other similarly situated employees, which was
the pay scale of Substitute Casual Labour. Subsequently, Late Ram Asrey (husband of the
respondent) was subjected to the screening which was held in consequence of notifications
No.Ka/50/1/Reservation/Lucknow Division/90 dated 30.08.1990 and 12.09.1990, whereby
available Scheduled Caste persons were required to work on short-term, shortfall vacancies of
Scheduled Caste temporarily in the pay scale of Rs. 750?940. The list of successful candidates was
notified on 22.01.1992, wherein the name of Late Ram Asrey (husband of the respondent) figured;
however, prior thereto, Late Ram Asrey (husband of the respondent) expired on 18.03.1991.

4. The respondent, being the wife of the deceased, Ram Asrey, applied for compassionate
appointment and, pursuant to the recommendation of the Divisional Railway Manager, Northern
Railway, Lucknow, the respondent was granted compassionate appointment on the post of Office
Khalasi. Apart from being granted compassionate appointment, the respondent was also entitled to
family pension and, as such, she also made a representation for grant of family pension, but nothing
transpired and, as such, the respondent filed Original Application No. 67 of 2013 before the Central
Administrative Tribunal, which was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 14.09.2016
272 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
directing the department to decide the claim of the respondent for entitlement to family pension
within a period of two months.

5. In response to the directions contained in the order dated 14.09.2016 passed in Original
Application No. 67 of 2013, the respondent preferred a representation which was rejected by order
dated 16.01.2017 and communicated to the respondent vide letter dated 08.05.2019. The order
dated 16.01.2017 rejecting the claim of the respondent for family pension was further challenged
by the respondent in O.A. No. 332/00315/2019, which was allowed vide judgment and order dated
28.08.2024. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 28.08.2024 passed in O.A. No.
332/00315/2019, the present writ petition has been filed primarily on the ground that the
respondent's husband died prior to the publication of the list dated 22.01.1992 and since the
husband of the respondent was not a regular employee and his status was only that of a casual
labourer (Seasonal Waterman) and as such, the respondent is not entitled to family pension.

6. It has further been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Family Pension
Scheme for railway employees, as provided in Circular No. 720-R/O-IX (Pension) dated October
26, 1965, stipulates that the Family Pension Scheme, 1964 is applicable upon absorption of a
railway employee against a temporary post and from the date of such absorption, the employee
would come within the purview of the scheme. Thus, the respondent is not entitled to family
pension, as her husband was never absorbed against a regular post.

7. It has also been argued that a "temporary railway servant" means a railway servant without
a lien on a permanent post on a Railway or in any other administration or office under the Railway
Board, and does not include within its ambit "casual labour," including "casual labour with
temporary status." It has been thus submitted that the status of the husband of the respondent was
that of casual labour at the time of his death and therefore the respondent is not entitled to family
pension.

8. It has also been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that Circular No. 220E/190/Post Facto/UMB/ dated 03.07.2002, relied upon by the learned Tribunal while allowing the
claim petition, was issued by the General Manager to all the Divisional Railway Managers,
Northern Railway, and does not apply to the case of the respondent as he was an employee in North
Eastern Railway. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal committed an error in applying the said
circular while granting the relief of family pension to the respondent.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the husband of the
respondent, namely Late Ram Asrey, was working as a Seasonal Waterman and was subjected to
screening in pursuance of notifications issued on 30.08.1990 and 12.09.1990, but unfortunately
died before the result could be declared. The result was declared on 22.01.1992, in which he was
successful. In the screening, the husband of the respondent was declared to have passed and was to
be appointed to the post of Coal Khalasi at Gonda Railway Station.

10. It has been submitted that there exists a circular of the Railway Board which provides that
where screening has been conducted and, before the result is declared, the employee expires, his
widow would be entitled to receive family pension, as the employee cannot be held responsible for
3 All. U.O.I. & Ors. Vs. Smt. Kamla Devi
273
the delay caused in the screening process. Reference has been made to Circular No. 220-E/190/Post
Facto/UMB/ dated 03.07.2002, wherein directions were issued to all Divisional Railway Managers,
Northern Railway, to pay all settlement dues, i.e., family pension, etc., to the family of the
deceased employee as if the employee had been deemed to have been regularized on the date of his
death.

11. It has further been submitted that one Kamini Srivastava filed O.A. No. 524 of 1997 before
the learned Tribunal, wherein it was held that the widow of a substitute is entitled to family
pension. The said judgment was upheld by the High Court and in furtherance thereof, Kamini
Srivastava is being paid family pension by the authorities.

12. Lastly, it has been contended that the order dated 16.01.2017, whereby the claim of the
respondent for family pension was rejected, did not consider the aforesaid facts, and as such, the
learned Tribunal, while allowing O.A. No. 332/00315/2019, rightly quashed the said order and
issued directions for payment of family pension along with arrears to the respondent by judgment
and order dated 28.08.2024.

13. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the records, we find that
it is an admitted fact that the husband of the respondent, Late Ram Asrey, was engaged as a
Seasonal Waterman and his name appeared in the list of successful candidates in the result declared
on 02.01.1992 of the screening test, which had been conducted pursuant to notifications issued on
30.08.1990 and 12.09.1990. He was to be posted as Coal Khalasi at Gonda Railway Station.
However, before the result could be declared on 22.01.1992, he died on 18.03.1991.

14. The Circular dated 03.07.2002, issued by the General Manager and addressed to all
Divisional Railway Managers, Northern Railway, specifically covers cases where a casual labourer
dies before the issuance of the panel of screening. It takes into account situations where delay in
declaration of results has occurred due to administrative reasons and not due to any shortcoming on
the part of the casual labour. It provides that in such cases, administrative delay should not come in
the way of payment of settlement dues to the family of the deceased, provided the name of the
deceased appears in the panel of successful candidates after screening. The Circular dated
03.07.2002 is extracted hereunder:

HEADQUARTERS OFFICE

BARODA HOUSE NEW DELHI

Dt. 3rd July, 02

No. 220-S/190/Post-facto/UMB/Erv

Divisional Railway Manager.,

Northern Railway,
274 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

ALD, BKN, DLI, FZR, JU, LKO, MB & UMB

Sub:

Matter relating to Casual Labour who die before issue of panel of screening.

The work relating to de-casualisation of casual labour has already been complished on
Northern Railway. However, cases are being received from the divisions for clarifications with
regard to payment of settlement dues to the CL.. who had been screened, but had expired before the
issue of panel of screening.

As the screening for de-casualisation of casual labour was to be conducted against the posts
specifically sanctioned for the purpose, normally there should not have been any occasion for delay
between the date of screening and regularisation of the panel of screening. However if the result of
screening has been delayed on account of administrative reasons and not on account of any
shortcoming on the port of the casual labour, then the administrative delay should not come in the
way of payment of settlement dues to the family of the deceased.

Accordingly, it has been decided that in such cases where the panel has been delayed on
account of the administrative reasons, the name of the deceased casual labour should be borne on
the panel along with others at the appropriate place and a mention should be made in the remarks
column' that the employee has since expired. The settlement dues to the family of deceased
employee should be paid as if the deceased employee was deemed to have been regularized on the
date of his death.

It is pertinent to mention here that the above instructions would hold good for those
casual labour, who have been engaged with the approval of the competent authority. However for
the casual labour engaged after 3-1-81 without the approval of the G.M., their cases would need
the approval of the HQs office before their names are borne on the panels.

These instructions issue with the approval of the C.P.O.

(Dharam Singh)

for General Manager

15. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the said Circular dated 03.07.2002
is applicable only to Northern Railway and not to North Eastern Railway is misconceived and
cannot stand legal scrutiny, inasmuch as similarly placed employees cannot be discriminated
against merely on the ground that they are working in different divisions or zones under the same
employer, i.e., the Railways, under the Railway Board and the Ministry of Railways. Such
discrimination would not withstand legal scrutiny and would amount to a violation of Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution of India. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Munshi Ram, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1493.
Paragraph nos.55, 56 and 57 are reproduced hereinbelow:
3 All. U.O.I. & Ors. Vs. Smt. Kamla Devi
275

55. From the aforesaid, it can be seen that with respect to Commission Vendors/bearers
working in the Western Railway, Eastern Railway, Southern Railway and South-Eastern Railway,
they are held to be entitled to 50% of the services rendered prior to their regularization to be
counted for pensionary benefits and all those Commission Vendors/bearers are granted such
benefits. Now the dispute is with respect to Commission Vendors/bearers working in the Northern
Railway.

56. It cannot be disputed that employees working in different divisions/zones in the
Railways are under the very same employer - Railway Board which is under the Ministry of
Railways. There are 16 Zones and 68 Divisions in the Railways. Therefore, the employees working
under the same employer - Railway Board working in different Zones/Divisions are required to be
treated similarly and equally and are entitled to similar benefits and are entitled to the same
treatment. As rightly submitted on behalf of the respondents, there cannot be any discrimination
inter se. Under the circumstances, on the ground of parity, the Commission Vendors/bearers
working in the Northern Railway are entitled to the same benefits which are held to be entitled to
all the similarly situated Commission Vendors/Bearers working under different Zones/Divisions.
There cannot be different criteria/parameters with respect to similarly situated employees -
Commission Vendors/bearers working in different Zones/Divisions, but working under the same
employer.

57. The Railways/UOI/Railway Board cannot be permitted to repeat the same arguments
which were raised before different Tribunals, High Courts and also before this Court. Under the
circumstances, the respondents - Commission Vendors/bearers working in the Northern Railway
shall also be entitled to the same benefits which the other Commission Vendors/bearers working in
different Zones/Divisions are held to be entitled to. There cannot be discrimination among the
similarly situated Commission Vendors/bearers. To deny similar benefits would tantamount to
discrimination and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

(Emphasis supplied by us)

16. We are of the view that differential treatment cannot be permitted by extending the benefit
of family pension to casual labourers of Northern Railway on one hand and denying the same
benefit to casual labourers of North Eastern Railway, who are working under the same employer,
i.e., the Railway Board under the Ministry of Railways.

17. It is also to be noted that the husband of the respondent died on 18.03.1991, whereas the
Circular is dated 03.07.2002. An argument has been advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner
that the said Circular is prospective in nature and cannot be applied in the case of the respondent.
The said argument is misconceived and without any basis as a plain reading of the Circular dated
03.07.2002 shows that it was issued in response to cases received from various divisions seeking
clarification regarding payment of settlement dues to casual labourers who had been screened but
had expired before issuance of the panel. Thus, the Circular applies to the cases which were
pending at the time of its issuance, including those where the employees had died prior to
03.07.2002 but whose dues had not yet been settled. Accordingly, the argument of learned counsel
276 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
for the petitioner that the Circular dated 03.07.2002 would not apply to the present case is devoid of
merit and is rejected.

18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the judgment and order dated
28.08.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow, in O.A. No.
332/00315/2019 (Smt. Kamla Devi vs. Union of India and others) is just and proper, therefore, we
are not inclined to interfere with the same.

19. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

20. No order as to costs.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 276
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 30.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ A No. 4999 of 2007

Awadhesh Chandar Shukla ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue(s) for consideration
 Whether the petitioner is entitled for payment of salary, where his appointment stood approved by deemed
fiction of law?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - U.P. Recognized Junior High Schools Recruitment on Conditions of Service
Rules, 1978: Rule 10(5) - No appointment letter shall be issued to the selected candidate
without obtaining approval from the District Basic Education Officer and in case on submission of
papers for grant of approval or to refuse to grant of approval, the District Basic Education Officer does not
pass any order within thirty days from the date of receipt of the papers, it is deemed that the
approval has been granted to the selection and thereafter, appointment letter can be issued by the
Committee of Management to the selected candidates. (Para 14)

B. In a case where prior approval for appointment is required, the incumbent gets the status of
Teacher only when approval is granted or deemed to have been granted. Admittedly, papers relating
to selection and appointments of appellants were sent to DIOS for approval, but DIOS failed to bestow his
considered on these papers within statutory specified period. As such, appointment of the appellants
stood approved by deemed fiction of law. (Para 16, 17)

In view of the provisions contained u/Rule 10(5), the appointment of the petitioner was deemed approved by
operation of law, therefore, he is entitled for payment of salary with effect from 1.12.2006 after taking
institution on grant-in-aid list in pursuance to GO issued on 2.12.2006. (Para 18)