Supreme Court Grants Justice to Widow After Nearly Three Decades: Justices S. Karol and S. C. Sharma Order Full Family Pension and Arrears

The Honble Supreme Court of India has recently given an important judgment in the matter of Mala Devi versus Union of India & Ors., on important aspects of family pension entitlement in the contingency of death of temporary railway servants in harness. On this 16th day of July, 2025, this order vacates the earlier rulings by the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Patna High Court and points to a more humane reading of the rules of pensions and the intention of such welfare measure.

Case History

The case is about Mala Devi who is the wife of Late Shri Om Prakash Maharaj. Mr. Maharaj was posted as a temporary worker in the Eastern Indian Railways; he was a one-time worker who was also hired as a temporary worker as a Summer waterman on October 15, 1986. As a substitute he worked 9 years, 8 months, 26 days, passing a screening test and as a Guard/Shuntman was deputed. Even worse, he met with an accident at his workplace and died on July 10, 1996.

Upon his death, Mala Devi was grant ex-gratia and was made a Substitute Gangman on compassionate basis and after a period of 120 days her employment was regularized. The Railways however rejected her claim of family pension on the grounds that employment of her husband was not regularized and that he had not given any minimum qualifying service of 10 years.

On December 23, 2015, her claim was rejected by the Central Administrative tribunal who held that since she was not regularized, she cannot claim to receive family pension. The Patna High Court confirmed this verdict on May 12, 2016 and observed that the date of service was less than 10 years. Angry at such refusals, Mala Devi took this case to the Supreme Court of India.

Existential Problems in front of the Court

The substance of the case before the supreme court was that Mala Devi has a right to family pension over her dead spouse, was this rightful and could the administration of such relief by lower courts be inflicted? These include interpretation of the relevant provisions of manuals of Indian Railway establishment and the Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993, especially in respect of the position of substitutes and temporary railway servants about their entitlement to pensions.

The Appellant advanced the contentions that the rule 1515 of Indian railway establishment manual grants the right and privileges of temporary railway servants to their substitutes after four months of continuous service. Moreover, the Rule 18 (3) of the Railway Service ( Pension ) Rules, 1993 provides family pension and death gratuity to temporary railway servant who dies in harness, on the same scale as to the permanent railway servant. With rule 75(2) (a) of the Pension Rules, 1993, family pension is provided to the dependants in case of a railway servant who dies after having served a consecutive period of one year. By reason of the fact that Mr. Maharaj had been so long in the service (more than 9 years and 8 months) he had passed the stipulated requirement to become a temporary servant in the railway in terms of these requirements.

On the other hand, the Respondents argued that the deceased did not work 10 years which is the minimum period of serving family pension, and his employment was not regularized. They further contended that there was no service of the deceased as a substitute which was continuous as an alternative to more than four months and hence did not attain the status of temporary railway servant under the temporary railway servant scheme to get a family pension. The Respondents also argued that the arguments based on Rule 1515 and Railway Pension Rules, 1993 were fresh and were not to be heard at Supreme Court level.

Analysis and interpretation of the Court

The judges in the Supreme Court gave a keen consideration to the argument presented by both parties. An important precedent that was raised was of Prabhavati Devi v. Union of India & Ors. where the Court had applied family pension to the widow of a deceased railway servants who had assumed a temporary status and was at his normal station when he died. Practicing this case law, the Court observed that Mr. Maharaj had gained the status of temporary railway servant in the provisions of the Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993, having successfully undergone one year of uninterrupted service, passed through medical examination and screening, and was deputed to a new post.

The Court pointed out that here, Rule 75 of the Railway Pension Rules of 1993 is quite explicit that a temporary railway servant is also eligible to receive family pension in case he or she has made more than one year of continuous service in the railways. This relates to the family of a deceased railway servant who died in harness, after completing one year of continuous service whether temporary or regularized. The Court discounted the fact that there was such an absurd decision to deny family pension on some ground that the deceased does not qualify because of serving just less than 10 years by only three months.

The Court pointed out that these rules are meant to expand the benefits to families of the individuals who had served a long time. It acknowledged that Mr. Maharaj was not an ad-hoc labourer as only but that he had been subjected to screening of regularization, which he had admittedly passed. He died when he was proceeding with his service.

The Catch-Case-Ruling

On the ground of its detailed analysis, the Supreme Court has held here that the entitlement of family pension and its arrears was in the favor of Mala Devi. The Court held that the family pension was to be calculated according to rule 75 as read with rule 18(3) of the railway service (pension) rules 1993 which extends benefits of temporary railway servants similar to the benefits given to permanent railway servants. The Respondents were also to arrear and pay the amount of family pension and regular family pension to the Appellant within four months.

Also, since the Appellant had long struggled since 2014 and in view of the fact that family pension is aimed to sustain dependants in crisis, the Supreme Court in its directory of Article 142 of the Constitution of India awarded an ex-gratia of Rs. 5,00,000/- to Mala Devi.

The case is an important success not only to the dependents of temporary government employees especially railways, but also it creates a mood that the spirit of the welfare law is going to pre dominate rather than strict overtures of determining the service tenure. It stresses the presence of the judiciary towards giving relief and promoting the cause of justice, particularly in those instances when an individual may under the circumstances lose due to some technicalities which would at the same time deny some person the right benefits due to him. The decision presents an evident guideline that temporary position, active service, and requisite screening justify pensionary benefits to both workers and their dependants as well, hence bringing in much-desired security. Sources