Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Lrs Smt Ragini Sharma vs M/O Home Affairs on 4 July, 2025
1 OA 725/2012
Reserved
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
CIRCUIT SITTING: GWALIOR
Original Application No.725 of 2012
Jabalpur, this Friday, the 4th day of July, 2025
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MRS. MALLIKA ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
B.D. Nagaich, S/o Late Shri Ramjilal Nagaich,
age 80 years, R/o House No.9-C, Duplex,
Green Garden Estate, Patel Nagar,
City Centre-II, Gwalior (M.P.)-474011
2. Smt. Ragini Sharma, Wd/o Late Shri Sushil Kumar Sharma,
ACTI, CSTM, Age-45 years, R/o Flat No. 006,
Ground Floor, Pink Place, Housing Society, Near KDMC Market,
Rambagh, Santishi Mata Road, Kalyan (W),
(Maharashtra)-421301, permanently R/o House No. 9-C,
Duplex, Green Garden Estate, Patel Nagar,
City Centre-II, Gwalior (M.P.)-474011
LRs of applicant No.1.
(a) Mr. Siddhant Sharma, Grand son, aged 24 years,
(b) Mr. Aditya Sharma, Grand son, aged 19 years,
All are R/o 9-C Duplex & Flat No. 101 Amaltas Building, Green
Garden estate,
Patel Nagar, City Centre-II, Gwalior (M.P.)-474011 -Applicants
(By Advocate -Shri Alok Kumar Sharma)
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India,
Central Secretariat, North Block, New Delhi-110011
2. Union of India through the Secretary,
Ministry of Railways,
Govt. of India, Rail Bhawan,
Page 1 of 12
VISHAL 2025.07.04
17:11:26
KUSHWAH+05'30'
2 OA 725/2012
New Delhi-110001
3. The Chairman, Railway Board, Govt. of India,
Rail Bhawan, New Delhi-110001
4. The General Manager, Central Railway,
Mumbai CST,
Mumbai (Maharashtra)-400001
5. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the principal secretary,
Ministry of Home, Mantralaya,
Mumbai, Maharashtra-400001
6. The State of Madhya Pradesh,
Through the Principal Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs, Mantralaya,
Vallabh Bhawan, Arera Hills,
Bhopal, M.P.-462004
7. The Secretary, Govt. of India,
Ministry of Defence, Central Secretariat
South Block, New Delhi-110001 -Respondents
(By Advocate - Shri B.M.Patel)
(Date of reserving order: 05.03.2025)
ORDER
By Mallika Arya, AM.-
Applicant No.1 is represented through LRs, who is the son of the deceased employee Shri Sushil Kumar Sharma while applicant No.2 is the wife of the deceased employee. They are aggrieved that the Railways have not recommended the deceased employee for the gallantry award. The applicants are also seeking Page 2 of 12 VISHAL 2025.07.04 17:11:26 KUSHWAH+05'30' 3 OA 725/2012 enhanced payment of ex-gratia compensation as provided in the Office Memorandum dated 02.09.2008 (Annexure A-1).
2. This is the second round of litigation before this Tribunal. Earlier, the father of the deceased along with the wife of the deceased filed an Original Application No.906/2010, which was disposed by this Tribunal vide order dated 16.11.2010, wherein the applicant had prayed for the following relief:
"(a) Gallantry/Bravery Award with appreciation letter/certificate-Be awarded to Late Shri Sushil Kumar Sharma, posthumously as per the recommendation/Citation dated 02.12.2008 (Annexure A/7) and PMO's letter dated 04.02.2009 (Annexure A/8) be awarded.
(b) Ex-gratia compensation - Remaining Ex-gratia compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Five Lac) with interest be paid immediately in view of the para 11(c) of the OM dated 02.09.2008 (Annexure A/11)."
The following observations were made by this Tribunal while disposing the O.A./906/2010:
"4. It appears, after representing the authorities and giving a notice through the Lawyer, the Applicants have approached this Tribunal. Grievances raised in this Original Application deserves serious consideration of the Govt. of India and also by the Railways for grant of Special Pension etc. In the said premises, without any waste of time, this case is hereby disposed of by remitting the matter to the Respondents, who should consider the grievances of the applicant (as raised in their Page 3 of 12 VISHAL 2025.07.04 17:11:26 KUSHWAH+05'30' 4 OA 725/2012 representation, in the notice and in this OA) in a positive manner expeditiously and intimate the result of the said consideration to the applicant. Railways should undertake the exercise (for recommending the case to MHA) promptly by the end of January, 2011."
Alleging non-compliance of the order, a Contempt Petition was filed by the applicant bearing no. C.P. NO. 08/2011 which was disposed by this Tribunal wherein as per Para 3 it was observed as follows:
"3. ....... He further submits that decision in the matter of Gallantry Award to Shri S K Sharma, has also been taken up and forwarded to the Ministry of Home Affairs. However, the proposed Gallantry Award has been rejected as his case was not recommended. The details regarding payments against other heads as described in Annexure R/4 has also been given to the applicants. We record this Statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in view of the statement made by the respondents, this CP may be disposed of with liberty to the applicants to file fresh OA if aggrieved by the decision taken on the representation.
5. Accordingly, the CCP is disposed of as withdrawn, with liberty as aforesaid."
Hence, this O.A. has been filed by the LRs.
3. The Respondent no. 1 in their reply has submitted as follows:
Page 4 of 12
VISHAL 2025.07.04 17:11:26 KUSHWAH+05'30' 5 OA 725/2012 "D. ....... Ministry of Railways was again informed vide OM dated 21/4/2011(Annexure R/4) that no recommendation in respect of Late Shri Sushil Kumar Sharma was received yet and it was not possible to consider his name in the absence of recommendation from the Ministry of Railways or State Govt. It was also clarified that there is a time limit of two years for consideration of the award as per Regulation governing Ashoka Chakra series of Gallantry Awards, which is enclosed (Annexure R/1).
E. That in response, Ministry of Railways forwarded their recommendation vide OM dated 21.6.2011 (Annexure R/5) for Shaurya Chakra Award for his "Supreme Sacrifice" in fighting terrorists on 26/11/2008 at Mumbai, CST Station. However, soon vide their subsequent OM dated 1/7/2011(Annexure R/6), they clarified that "Late Shri Sushil Kumar Sharma was killed by terrorist bullet in the normal performance of his duties and not in fighting the terrorist"
F. It is further stated that the incident pertains to November 2008 and the recommendation from Ministry of Railways was received on 21.6.2011 i.e. much after the prescribed time limit of two year for consideration of the award. Moreover, this award is given for 'Conspicuous Gallantry'. Ministry of Railways itself had stated that 'Late Shri Sushil Kumar Sharma was killed by terrorist bullet in the normal performance of his duties and not in fighting the terrorist' making the case unfit for the gallantry award. Meeting of the Sub Committee on Ashoka Chakra Series of Gallantry Award for the Independence Day 2011 was held on 14.6.2011. The instant recommendation was received on 21.6.2011. Hence, it was not considered by the Committee.Page 5 of 12
VISHAL 2025.07.04 17:11:26 KUSHWAH+05'30' 6 OA 725/2012 G. ..... The recommendation in respect of Late Shri Sushil Kumar Sharma was considered by the Sub-Committee on Ashoka Chakra Series of Gallantry Awards for the Republic Day 2012, in its meeting held on the December 7, 2011 wherein his case was found time barred......."
4. The Respondent nos. 3 & 4 in their reply have submitted that grant of "Gallantry/Bravery award" is not a service matter and is not governed by any service Rule. Therefore, the same is beyond the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Tribunal. It has been further submitted that Late Shri Sharma was hit by bullets of the terrorist and he lost his life in terrorist attack on 26.11.2008 at Mumbai CST, However, they have specifically denied that Shri Sharma died while fighting the terrorists and became a victim of the said attack. All the dues were paid as admissible to the applicant including the lumpsum ex-gratia. Compassionate appointment has also been given to the wife of the deceased along with liberalized pension @ 17930 plus DA. Hence the employee lost his life in normal performance of his duties and cannot be called as 'fighting with Terrorists'. In light of the same, the Railways issued a corrigendum OM dated 01.07.2011 which cannot be called in question by this Tribunal. Therefore, in light of Para 11
(b) of the OM dated 02.09.2008, the deceased employee's family is not entitled to ex-gratia compensation of Rs. 15 Lacs which covers the following cases 'Death occurring due to (a) enemy action in Page 6 of 12 VISHAL 2025.07.04 17:11:26 KUSHWAH+05'30' 7 OA 725/2012 international war or border skirmishes and (b) action against militants, terrorists, extremists etc'.
The respondents have further submitted that O.A./906/2010 was disposed at the admission stage itself without giving an opportunity to the respondents to file their reply. Contempt Petition filed by the applicants was also dismissed by this Tribunal with observation that the proposal of Gallantry award has been rejected, as his case was not recommended. Moreover, Shri Sharma is not entitled to the benefit extended to the families of the deceased employees of Mumbai Police and NSG Commandos as they were killed while fighting in the course of engagement with the terrorists.
In their reply to C.P. No. 08/2011 filed by the deceased employee's family, the respondents had submitted in their reply dated 23.07.2011 that Bravery/Gallantry award is to be awarded by the Ministry of Home Affairs. The case of the applicant along with the recommendation of the Railway Board was duly forwarded to the Ministry of Home Affairs on 21.06.2011 (Annexure R/1). The said letter was issued with the approval of Shri V N Tripathi, Member Staff, Ministry of Railways (Railway Board). On perusal of the letter dated 21.06.2011, it is evident that the Ministry of Railways had recommended the case of the applicant for Shaurya Chakra Award Page 7 of 12 VISHAL 2025.07.04 17:11:26 KUSHWAH+05'30' 8 OA 725/2012 under the Ashok Chakra Series for his Supreme Sacrifice in fighting the terrorists on 26.11.2008.
5. We have considered the matter and also perused the pleadings and documents annexed with the Original Application.
6. It is not understood that as to how within a span of 10 days a verdict of the respondent no. 3 changed and a subsequent corrigendum dated 01.07.2011 was issued to the Ministry of Home Affairs, wherein it was stated that "Shri Sushil Kumar Sharma was killed by terrorist bullet in the normal performance of his duties and not 'in fighting the terrorists' ". The said fact had been mentioned erroneously in the earlier OM dated 21.06.2011 and the same should be deleted. However, the subsequent OM does not mention approval by any competent authority of the Railway Board. If that be so, it is not understood as to how the Railways decided to give the Extraordinary family pension to the wife of the deceased employee vide order dated 14.06.2011. There is substantial merit in the contention of the Respondent no. 1 wherein they have stated categorically that in pursuance of the judgment of this Tribunal in O.A./906/2010 order dated 16.11.2010 which was received in their office on 24.03.2011, Ministry of Railways, was duly informed regarding the case of Shri Sushil Kumar Sharma vide OM dated 21.04.2011. It was mentioned that no recommendation was received Page 8 of 12 VISHAL 2025.07.04 17:11:26 KUSHWAH+05'30' 9 OA 725/2012 from their office in the case of Shri Sushil Kumar Sharma and in the absence of the same, his case could not be considered. They were also apprised regarding the time limit of 2 years for consideration of 'Gallantry Award' in the Ashoka Chakra Series as per Regulation. It is surprising to note that this fact was hidden by the respondents in their reply filed in compliance to the contempt Petition No. 08/2011 dated 23.07.2011 before this Tribunal wherein they only submitted that the recommendation had been forwarded to the Ministry of Home Affairs on 21.06.2011. It is relevant to mention that the case was time bar when they recommended it to MHA vide their OM dated 21.06.2011. To cover their lapse and the issue of time bar, they issued a corrigendum dated 01.07.2011 wherein they completely changed their stand. The fact that Ministry of Home Affairs had already informed them that their case could only be considered within a time limit of two years and the same had become time barred as it was not recommended in time, was never brought to the notice of this Tribunal in O.A./906/2010. The respondents No. 3 & 4 also conveniently hid this relevant fact from this Tribunal in furnishing compliance to the contempt petition and took a stand that since the employee had died not in fighting with the terrorists but by a terrorist bullet, his case was not recommended. They had further submitted Page 9 of 12 VISHAL 2025.07.04 17:11:26 KUSHWAH+05'30' 10 OA 725/2012 that in the light of the above findings Ex-gratia compensation of 10 lacs was only admissible to the family of deceased employee.
7. The Tribunal at that material time closed the contempt with the option to the LRs to pursue the matter again by way of filing of fresh OA if aggrieved by the decision taken on the representation.
8. We take note of the internal report prepared by the Railways (Respondent no. 4) on 02.12.2008 (Annexure A-7) in respect of Late Shri Sushil Kumar Sharma and other officials duly forwarded to the Railway Board (Respondent No. 3). The report in respect of the applicant reads as under:
"Late Shri S K Sharma ACTI CSTM and Shri A K Tiwari ACTI CSTM were deputed to work in 16:00/24:00 hrs duty on 26.11.2008 at CSTM Main Line Station. At about 21.55 hrs they were returning to TC office after having usual inspection round of station premises. While they were in Booking office concourse they heard sound of blast followed by gun firing. Late Shri S K Sharma immediately rushed to control office and gave information about the attack. Despite several request from staff at control office not to go out, Shri Sharma without caring his life was rushing towards the Main Line concourse. However, before he could help other passengers in saving their lives, two bullets hit him and he lost his life.
The intention on part of Shri Sharma has led an exceptional example to other staff and has definitely improved the image of Railways among the traveling passengers and public in general."
The said recommendation was never forwarded to the Ministry of Home Affairs till receipt of OM dated 21.04.2011 from the Ministry Page 10 of 12 VISHAL 2025.07.04 17:11:26 KUSHWAH+05'30' 11 OA 725/2012 of Home Affairs and that too in pursuance of the Tribunal's order in O.A./906/2010 dated 16.11.2010. Thereafter, the Railways recommended the name of the Shri Sushil Kumar Sharma for the Shaurya Chakra, under the Ashoka Chakra series on 21.06.2011 vide OM No. E(G)2011/AW1/66/CAT(CCP) for his supreme sacrifice in fighting the terrorists on 26.11.2008 at Mumbai CST station. Despite the internal report (Annexure A/7) having been prepared on 02.12.2008, the Railways Administration with their insensitive attitude did not bother to forward the same to Ministry of Home Affairs within the time limit of 2 years recommending the case of the deceased employee for 'Gallantry Award'.
9. In order to cover this lapse that the said report had already become time barred and the same would not merit consideration on grounds of limitation, they conveniently issued a corrigendum vide OM bearing No. E(G)2011/AW1/66/CAT(CCP) dated 01.07.2011 (Annexure R/1) wherein they completely changed their stand that the deceased employee died by the terrorist bullet in the normal performance of his duties and communicated the same to the Ministry of Home Affairs. This is in complete contradiction to their earlier OM dated 21.06.2011.
10. Therefore, we take a strong exception to the above arguments of Respondents no. 3 & 4 and observe that the services of Page 11 of 12 VISHAL 2025.07.04 17:11:26 KUSHWAH+05'30' 12 OA 725/2012 Shri Sushil Kumar Sharma, who died from a terrorist bullet in rendering services beyond the call of duty should not go unrecognized. The case of the applicant has moved back and forth between Respondent no. 1 and Respondents No.3/4 for which the applicant cannot be denied his due benefit/award.
11. In light of the above, we also direct the Respondent no. 3 to recommend the case of deceased employee for 'Shaurya Chakra' in Ashoka Chakra Series to the Ministry of Home Affairs. We further direct the Respondent no. 1 to consider the case of the applicants by taking special approval (if required) from the competent authority for grant of 'Gallantry Award' to the deceased employee who died in the 'service of the nation'. We also direct the Respondents no. 3 and 4 to release the balance ex-gratia compensation amount of Rs. 5,00,000 to the wife of the deceased employee. The said exercise should be completed within a period of 180 days from the date of issuance of certified copy of this order.
12. The Original Application is therefore allowed. No order as to costs.
(Mallika Arya) (Akhil Kumar Srivastava)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
VK/-
Page 12 of 12
VISHAL 2025.07.04
17:11:26
KUSHWAH+05'30'