Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Smt Prabhawati Devi vs General Manager, N E Rly on 17 November, 2025
1
Reserved on 07.11.2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD
BENCH, ALLAHABAD
ALLAHABAD this the 17th day of NOVEMBER 2025.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASAH -VII, MEMBER (J)
Original Application No. 330/01307/2018
Smt. Prabhawati Devi wife & LR of Shri Rajman Singh (being
medically unfit case due to mental illness)/ex Hammal under
SS/Siwan Jn., NER r/o Village Bodwal, PO Munderawan District
Basti.
........Applicant
Versus
1. Union of India through the General Manager, North Eastern
Railway, HQ Gorakhpur.
2. General Manager (P) North Eastern Railway, H. Q
Gorakhpur,
3. Divisional Railway Manager, North Eastern Railway,
Varanasi.
4. Senior Divisional Finance Manager, North Eastern Railway,
DRM's Office, Lahartara, Varanasi.
.......Respondents
Present for the Applicant: Shri M. K Dhruvbanshi
Present for the Respondents: Shri N. C. Srivastava
ORDER
Present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
"(a) The Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to call for the original records/file relating to the case and quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 3.11.2015 (Annexure A-1), 6.4.2016 (Annexure A-2), 11.5.2016 (Annexure A-3), orders dated 11.6.2016 and 13.06.2016 (Annexure A-4) and impugned order dated 19.8.2016 (Annexure A-5) order dated 15.9.2017 passed by the PIO/Divisional Railway Manager (P), North Eastern Raillway, Varanasi and direct the respondents to regularize his balance period of sick leave caused due to incurable mental disorder as EOL (extra ordinary leave).
MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 2
b) The Hon'ble Tribunal may further be pleased to verify the fresh qualifying service taking into consideration of his initial appointment i. e. from 9.7.1973 instead of 14.5.1975 and also add the period of EOL of 5 yars already granted at Divisional level by the competent authority and being his qualifying service admissible for granting pension, it should be granted from the date he has been declared unfit for service in all medical categories.
c) The Hon'ble Tribunal may also be pleased to direct the respondents alternatively to grant disability pension and other benefit admissible under the Rules due to 100% mental disability and medically unfit in all categories for railway service to Shri Rajman Singh ex Hammal, Siwan Jn. being his incurable mental disability 100% for his survival and his family.
d) Any other writ or order or direction which the Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also kindly be issued in the interest of justice.
e) Cost of the application may also be awarded.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant's husband was initially appointed as a Substitute Group 'D' employee in the pay scale of Rs. 196-232 and was later regularized as a Hammal after passing the A-2 medical category test. On 20.07.1984 while working at Siwan Junction he suddenly developed a serious mental disorder and became ill. He took treatment from a private doctor and after some recovery reported back for duty, after which he was referred to the Railway Medical Doctor. Later, he filed O.A. No. 982 of 2002 before this Tribunal, which was decided on 12.02.2002 directing for the constitution of a Medical Board. The Board examined him and based on its report the Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel), NER, Varanasi, declared him medically unfit in all categories with effect from 02.06.2004. However, no pension or settlement dues were paid to him. He approached the Railway Pension Adalat in December 2010, where it was stated that since he remained absent from duty from 20.07.1984 to 02.06.2004, that period needed to be regularized, and the matter was referred to the Railway Board. When no action was taken, he again filed O.A. No. 1112 of 2013 before this Tribunal. By order dated 29.07.2015, the Tribunal directed the respondents to decide the matter through a reasoned and speaking order. In compliance, the DRM (Personnel), Varanasi, recommended to the General Manager (Personnel), NER, Gorakhpur, to regularize the absence as Extra Ordinary Leave (EOL). However, the respondents passed the impugned order dated 02.11.2015 stating that MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 3 since the unauthorized absence exceeded five years, only the Railway Board could regularize it. Later, by orders dated 06.04.2016, 11.05.2016, 11.06.2016, 13.06.2016, and 19.08.2016, the department rejected his pension claim, saying that his qualifying service was less than ten years. As no relief was granted despite several representations, including one to the General Manager, NER, Gorakhpur, the applicant has now approached this Tribunal seeking justice.
3. The respondents, in their counter affidavit, stated that the applicant's husband was initially engaged as a Substitute in the Commercial Department and was granted temporary status from 14.09.1975. After passing the screening test, his services were regularized in May 1978. It was submitted that he remained absent from duty without authorization from 20.07.1984 to 02.06.2004, and was later declared medically unfit in all categories, leading to his retirement on 02.06.2004. For regularization of his long period of unauthorized absence, the case was referred to the Headquarters, Gorakhpur, which clarified vide letter dated 09.02.2016 that since he did not perform any duty after 19.07.1984, only the service rendered from 14.09.1975 to 19.07.1984, totaling 8 years, 2 months, and 10 days could be counted as qualifying service. Accordingly, all dues legally payable for this period were settled by the Accounts Department. As his total qualifying service was less than ten years, he was not eligible for pension benefits under the rules. The respondents further submitted that the Provident Fund could not be released only because the PF number was not provided, and assured that the amount would be released immediately once the PF number is furnished. Hence, the respondents contend that the Original Application lacks merit and deserves dismissal.
4. Rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the applicant in which the applicant has reiterated the facts as stated in the OA and denied the contents of the counter affidavit. Nothing new has been asserted in the rejoinder affidavit.
MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 4
5. I have heard Shri M.K. Dhruvbanshi, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Naveen Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant's husband was initially appointed on 09.07.1973 as Substitute. The respondents' action in reckoning his qualifying service only from 14.09.1975 is factually erroneous and legally unsustainable. The entire service rendered from the date of initial appointment must be counted for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits, as the intervening period of service was continuous and recognized by the department. Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that the prolonged absence of the applicant's husband from 20.07.1984 to 02.06.2004 was not willful or deliberate but due to severe mental disorder, which rendered him 100% medically unfit. Such absence, being involuntary and caused by permanent illness, falls within the ambit of "sickness" under the Railway Establishment Rules, and therefore deserves to be treated as authorized leave or Extra Ordinary Leave (EOL) on medical grounds. Learned counsel for the applicant also argued that the Railway Administration is vested with discretion to regularize absence on medical grounds in deserving cases. Failure to exercise such discretion, despite medical evidence showing that the applicant's husband was suffering from an incurable mental disorder, amounts to arbitrary and mechanical exercise of power, contrary to both statutory rules and humanitarian considerations. Counsel for the applicant next argued that the respondents have denied pensionary benefits without granting any reasonable opportunity of hearing or considering the genuine medical incapacity of the employee. Such denial is arbitrary, unfair, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, as it deprives the applicant of her rightful livelihood in the form of pension after the demise of her husband. Learned counsel for the applicant again argued that once the applicant's husband was declared 100% mentally disabled, he became entitled to disability pension and other MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 5 consequential benefits under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules and related provisions governing medically incapacitated employees. The respondents' refusal to grant disability pension despite medical certification constitutes gross violation of statutory entitlement. Learned counsel for the applicant again argued that the denial of pension on the ground of "insufficient qualifying service" is arbitrary and contrary to settled service jurisprudence. Non-counting of service arose solely due to medical incapacity beyond the employee's control. The period of absence ought to have been regularized ex post facto in the interest of justice, as per long- standing judicial precedents that safeguard employees suffering from mental illness or disability. It was argued that the withholding of Provident Fund amount merely on account of non-availability of the PF number is unjustified, especially when the applicant has expressed readiness to furnish the same. Non-release of PF dues to a widow amounts to unreasonable withholding of earned statutory benefits, and the respondents are bound to release the same forthwith. It was further argued that the impugned orders rejecting pensionary benefits are contrary to law, equity, and good conscience, having been passed without due application of mind to the medical condition and service record of the applicant's husband. These orders deserve to be quashed, and appropriate directions issued to the respondents to extend all admissible benefits along with costs.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that it is an admitted and undisputed fact that the applicant's husband remained absent without authorization from 20.07.1984 to 02.06.2004, a continuous period of nearly 20 years. Under Rule 1342 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code (IREC) Vol. I and relevant instructions, such prolonged unauthorized absence cannot be treated as qualifying service nor it can be regularized without sanction from the Railway Board. Therefore, the said period rightly stands excluded from pension computation. Learned counsel for the respondents next argued that the request for regularization of unauthorized absence was examined and rejected by the competent MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 6 authority, i.e., Headquarters, Gorakhpur, vide letter dated 09.02.2016, holding that the employee did not perform any duty after 19.07.1984. The respondents, having acted upon the said communication, have no jurisdiction to treat the absence period as service. Thus, the decision is in conformity with administrative competence and binding departmental instructions. Learned counsel for the respondents further argued that the declaration of medical unfitness on 02.06.2004 cannot be given retrospective effect to regularize an unauthorized absence of two decades. No medical record or sanctioned leave exists for that period, and hence the plea of "sickness" as a defence is untenable in law. Learned counsel for the respondents also argued that the respondents have acted strictly in accordance with law and rules, without any malafide or arbitrariness. The decision-making process is based on official records and service regulations, and therefore cannot be termed as violative of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel for the respondents further argued that the Provident Fund amount could not be released only due to the applicant's failure to furnish the PF number of the deceased employee. The respondents have already assured that payment will be made immediately upon receipt of the required information. Hence, there is no negligence or denial of lawful dues on the part of the respondents. Referring to the facts disclosed in the counter affidavit, learned counsel for the respondents further argued that the Original Application lacks legal merit and is liable to be dismissed, as the applicant has failed to establish any violation of statutory rules, administrative procedure, or natural justice principles by the respondents.
7. I have considered the pleadings, the documents on record and the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.
8. Two issues arise for our decision: (i) whether the service of late Shri Rajman Singh (husband of applicant) should be reckoned from his initial engagement as a Substitute on 09.07.1973 for pensionary purposes instead of from 14.09.1975 (date of grant of MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 7 temporary status); and (ii) whether the long period of absence from 20.07.1984 to 02.06.2004 occasioned by his mental illness can be regularised on medical grounds.
9. It is admitted fact that the deceased was engaged as a Substitute on 09.07.1973, he was granted temporary status on 14.09.1975 and was subsequently regularised in May 1978. The respondents have, however, counted qualifying service only from 14.09.1975. The legal position on treatment of substitute/casual service for pensionary purposes is now well settled. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others Vs. Rakesh Kumar and others decided in Civil Appeal No. 3938/2017 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 23723 of 2015 on 24.3.2017 has held as under:-
" In view of foregoing discussion, we hold :
i) the casual worker after obtaining temporary status is entitled to reckon 50% of his services till he is regularised on a regular/temporary post for the purposes of calculation of pension.
ii) the casual worker before obtaining the temporary status is also entitled to reckon 50% of casual service for purposes of pension.
iii) Those casual workers who are appointed to any post either substantively or in officiating or in temporary capacity are entitled to reckon the entire period from date of taking charge to such post as per Rule 20 of Rules, 1993.
iv) It is open to Pension Sanctioning Authority to recommend for relaxation in deserving case to the Railway Board for dispensing with or relaxing requirement of any rule with regard to those casual workers who have been subsequently absorbed against the post and do not fulfill the requirement of existing rule for grant of pension, in deserving cases. On a request made in writing, the Pension Sanctioning Authority shall consider as to whether any particular case deserves to be considered for recommendation for relaxation under Rule 107 of Rules, 1993".
10. Applying the aforesaid ratio, I hold that the period from 09.07.1973 up to 14.09.1975 must be taken into account at least to the extent of fifty per cent for pensionary computation. Further, having regard to the continuous nature of engagement, subsequent grant of temporary status and ultimate regularization, the MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 8 respondents shall consider on a representation made in writing, whether the case merits recommending to the Railway Board for relaxation under Rule 107 of Railway Servants Pension Rules 1993 for counting the entire substitute period. If such a recommendation is considered appropriate, the respondents should forward the proposal to the Railway Board without delay.
11. As regards regularization of the long absence (20.07.1984 to 02.06.2004) on medical grounds, it is settled that absence exceeding five years can be regularized only with the sanction of the competent Railway authority/Board. The medical record shows that the deceased was declared medically unfit in all categories w.e.f. 02.06.2004. In our view that the respondents ought to have considered the medical evidence sympathetically and placed a proper proposal before the Railway Board for ex-post facto regularisation of the period of absence as Extra-Ordinary Leave (EOL) on medical grounds.
12. I am of the view that respondents ought to have prepared and forward a detailed, reasoned proposal to the Railway Board if not already sent within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order, enclosing all medical records, service particulars and any other relevant material and to pursue the matter vigorously with the Board. Although Railway Board has not been arrayed as respondents but on this sole ground prayer of the applicant cannot be thrown out. The respondents shall place on record the action taken within three months of receipt of this order.
13. As far as non release of provident fund amount is concerned, entire documents are in the custody of respondents. Applicant cannot be made suffer on the basis of fault of respondents.
14. In view of the foregoing findings, the Original Application succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned orders dated 03.11.2015, 06.04.2016, 11.05.2016, 11.06.2016, 13.06.2016, 19.08.2016, and 15.09.2017 are quashed and set aside, insofar as MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 9 they decline to reckon the applicant's substitute service and to regularize the period of medical absence in the following manner:-
(a) the respondents shall, within four weeks, re-compute the qualifying service of late Shri Rajman Singh (husband of applicant) for pensionary purpose by reckoning 50% of the substitute period from 09.07.1973 to 14.09.1975;
(b) the respondents shall prepare and forward a reasoned proposal to the Railway Board for ex-post facto regularisation of the period 20.07.1984 to 02.06.2004 as EOL on medical grounds, if not already submitted enclosing the medical board report and all relevant documents, within four weeks to take the decision on the proposal by the Board. The Board shall take decision within one month thereafter.
(c) if the Railway Board grants relaxation or regularisation, the respondents shall, within six weeks of receipt of the Board's decision, recalculate pensionary and other retiral benefits and pay all admissible amounts and arrears to the applicant;
(d) in the meantime the respondents shall trace the documents and release the Provident Fund amount to the applicant immediately on receipt of the PF number and necessary identity documents along with interest at the rate of G.P.F. interest rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
15. There shall be no order as to costs. All pending applications stand disposed of.
(JUSTICE OM PRAKASH VII) Member (J) Manish/-
MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA