Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Smt Bilkis vs General Manager N C Rly on 2 December, 2025
(Reserved on 14.11.2025)
Central Administrative Tribunal
Allahabad Bench, Allahabad
****
Original Application No.425 of 2016
This the 02nd Day of December, 2025.
Hon'ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Pandey, Member (A)
Smt. Bilkis, w/o Late Liyaquat Ali, R/o E-Block, 127/10, GTB Nagar,
Kareli, Allahabad, deceased represented through :-
1/1 Saima a/a 32 years, D/o Late Liyakat Ali, resident of 42D/IM, Kareli,
G.B.T. Nagar, 60 feet Road, Bharat Marble wali Gali, Prayagraj, 211016.
1/2 Ghulam Mohammad, a/a 27 yeras, S/o Late Liyakat Ali, resident of
42D/1M, Kareli, G.B.T. Nagar, 60 feet Road, Bharat Marble wali Gali,
Prayagraj, 211016.
1/3 Ghulam Ghaus, a/a 26 yeras, S/o Late Liyakat Ali, resident of
42D/1M, Kareli, G.B.T. Nagar, 60 feet Road, Bharat Marble wali Gali,
Prayagraj, 211016.
....Applicants
By Advocate: Mr. S. S. Sharma/ Mr. Ravi Sharma
Versus
1. Union of India through, the General Manager, North Central Railway,
Headquarters Office, Subedarganj, Allahabad.
2. The General Manager, North Central Railway, Headquarters Office,
Subedarganj, Allahabad.
3. The Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway, DRM Office,
Allahabad.
4. The Senior Divisional Finance Manager, North Central Railway, DRM
Office, Allahabad.
5. The Assistant Mechanical Engineer (Operating), North Central
Railway, DRM Office, Allahabad.
...Respondents
By Advocate: Mr. Ajal Krishna
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Pandey, Member (A):-
Heard, Mr. S. S. Sharma/ Mr. Ravi Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Ajal Krishna, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, praying for the following relief(s):-
"8.1. That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash/set aside the impugned order dated 29.9.2015 issued by the DRM/NCR/Allahabad, respondent No. 3 rejecting request of the applicant for payment of all retiral dues and pensionary benefits of Late Liyaquat Ali, Ex. Cook Mate, husband of the applicant compulsorily retired from Railway service on 22.7.2002 and family pension to the applicant after death of the deceased employee on 5.3.2012. The impugned order is arbitrary, mala fide, based on totally false averments and in violation to Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
8.2 That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway, Allahabad, Respondent No. 3 to make payment of all settlement dues and pensionary benefits of Late Liyaquat Ali, the deceased employee, husband of the applicant, compulsorily retired from Railway Service on 22.7.2002 but nothing was paid till his death on 5.3.2012 to the applicant with interest @ 18% per annum from the date the amount is due w.e.f. 22.7.2002 to the date it is actually paid to the applicant.
8.3 That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be please to direct the Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway, Allahabad, Respondent No. 3 to issue necessary orders for payment of family pension to the applicant under Rule 75 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 after death of her husband Liyaquat Ali, Ex. Cook Mate on 5.3.2012 with arrear thereof till the payment is made to the applicant with interest @ 18% per annum.
8.4 That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the Sr. Divisional Finance Manager, NCR, Allahabad, respondent No. 4 to submit complete details of retiral dues and pensionary benefits of Late Liyaquat Ali, the deceased employee paid or not paid after his compulsory retirement from Railway service on 22.7.2002 before the Hon'ble Tribunal.
8.5 That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to allow heavy cost in favour of the applicant. 8.6 That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass any other order of direction as may deem just fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case so that she may get justice "
3. The applicant's husband (now deceased) was appointed as a Cook Mate under SSE/Loco, Northern Railway, Allahabad on 10.04.1981 and was a regular permanent employee. On 25.11.1999, he was issued a major penalty charge-sheet for unauthorized absence from duty by the AME (P), Northern Railway, Allahabad. The Disciplinary Authority appointed an Inquiry Officer on 13.06.2000. The Inquiry Officer asked the deceased employee on 25.04.2001 to nominate a defence helper, conducted the inquiry and submitted his report. After considering the inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement on 22.07.2002. The SSE/Loco, Allahabad received this order on 26.07.2002 and was directed to update the service records. Under Rule 64 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, the deceased employee became entitled to retiral and pensionary benefits such as provident fund, gratuity, leave encashment, pension, commutation, and group insurance. However, none of these benefits were paid to him until his death on 05.03.2012. After his death, the applicant became entitled to family pension, but this has also not been paid. The SSE/Loco, Allahabad issued a letter on 24.09.2002 asking the deceased employee to vacate the railway quarter due to his compulsory retirement. The respondents also asked him on 06.09.2002 to submit documents for settlement dues. The applicant made representations on 07.04.2013 and 03.11.2014 requesting payment of retiral dues and family pension, but no action was taken. She then filed O.A. No. 59/2015. The Tribunal decided the O.A. on 21.04.2015 and directed the respondents to decide her representation dated 03.11.2014 by a detailed and reasoned order. In compliance, the respondents passed the impugned order dated 29.09.2015, rejecting her claim for retiral dues and family pension. Aggrieved by this order, the applicant has filed the present Original Application.
4 The respondents, in their short counter affidavit, submit that the applicant's husband was compulsorily retired on 22.07.2002 and died on 05.03.2012, but he never submitted any papers for grant of pension. They argue that since no pension was sanctioned to him during his lifetime, the applicant cannot claim family pension. They also question why the deceased employee did not approach the authorities or any court for nearly ten years after his retirement. The respondents further state that the impugned order dated 29.09.2015 records that a minor penalty charge-sheet was issued to the deceased employee in 1999, but the applicant has produced an order of major penalty of compulsory retirement dated 22.07.2002 based on the same charge-sheet. They contend that this alleged retirement order (Annexure A-4) appears doubtful, fictitious and manipulated, and therefore cannot be accepted for granting retiral benefits to the applicant. The respondents have also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C. Jacob v. Director of Geology & Mining and Another, reported in (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 961, wherein the Apex Court observed that misplaced sympathy in such matters encourages indiscipline, leads to unjust enrichment of the employee at fault, and results in a drain on the public exchequer. The respondents have further submitted that the claim of the applicant is time barred and the same is liable to be rejected. The respondents submit that the applicant's husband died on 05.03.2012, whereas the present O.A. has been filed only on 20.03.2016, after a delay of more than fourteen years. They further state that the order dated 21.04.2015 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 59/2015 did not confer any benefit or create any right in favour of the applicant, nor has any such right arisen from the impugned order dated 29.09.2015. The respondents also rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath & Others, 1994 (1) SCC, wherein the Court held that a litigant must approach the Court with clean hands, and a person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to seek relief and can be non-suited at any stage. According to the respondents, the applicant's case is based on falsehood, as the alleged order dated 22.07.2002 of compulsory retirement, issued by the Assistant Divisional Mechanical Engineer (Operating), NCR, Allahabad, is said to have been passed on the basis of a minor penalty charge-sheet issued under Rule 6(vii) to
(ix) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, under which compulsory retirement cannot be imposed. They therefore contend that the said order is apparently illegal and not genuine.
5. In the rejoinder affidavit, the applicant reiterates that she is the legally wedded widow of Late Liyaqat Ali and that she is entitled to family pension under Rule 75 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, from 05.03.2012, the date of her husband's death. The deceased remained in continuous service until his compulsory retirement on 22.07.2002, but none of his retiral benefits, including gratuity, pension, or leave encashment, were paid during his lifetime, and no Pension Payment Order was issued. The deceased's service record, which allowed him to avail privilege passes, P.T.O., and medical treatment in Railway hospitals, was maintained, and after its reconstruction on 20.04.1999, it was the responsibility of the concerned officers to obtain a fresh nomination letter. The applicant cannot be held responsible for this administrative requirement, nor was it necessary for her to raise any objection to the compulsory retirement at that time. The cause of action for family pension arose upon the death of the deceased on 05.03.2012. On the basis of the documentary evidence submitted, including Annexure A-13, and the admitted non-payment of pension and other retiral dues, the applicant submits she is entitled to family pension along with interest on delayed amounts.
6. Heard learned counsels of both the parties, perused the material on record and have also considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties. The counsel for the applicant has quoted judgment of S.K.Mastan Bee vs General Manager South Central Railway and another (2003) 1 SCC 184, is support of their case.
7. The Court observed that the service record of Sh. Liaqat Ali is not available and duplicate record seems to have been created based on some available papers. As per the applicant, the employee had been proceeded against for unauthorised absence and had been compulsorily retired on 22,07.2002. The employee died on 05.03.2012 ie almost a decade after he was retired compulsorily. It is a bit strange that he never asked for his retiral dues for 10 years till his death. While one can believe that the wife is illiterate and didn't know of the service rules, the same cannot be said about the employee who worked in Railways. All employees know that on retirement, they are entitled to their pension and other retiral dues unless there is a punishment to that effect.
8 We have also considered the judgment of S.K. Mastan Bee (supra). In the instant case, during his life time, the deceased employee had not approached for pension, as record is not available. We cannot presume any t hing else as his legal right and on account of not mentioning name of applicant in service record or as a nominee, we are unable to come to conclusion regarding right of applicant for family pension at this belated stage. Moreover, from whatever has been constructed about the service from duplicate records, there seem to be many anomalies:
(i) There is no nomination to be found.
(ii) The date of birth of Lt Sh. Liyaquat Ali , as informed by
the applicant in the OA is 16.06.1958. The Nikahnama submitted by the applicant in support of her marriage shows the date of marriage as 16.03.1988 and the age of Lt. Sh. Liyaquat Ali as 24 years on that day. If the date of birth given by the applicant is taken to be true, the age of Lt. Sh. Liaqat Ali should have been 30 years on the date of marriage and not 24 years. This fact also raises a doubt as submissions of the applicant do not match.
(iii) Another doubt which arises is the papers submitted by the applicant showing that Lt Sh. Liyaquat Ali had been compulsorily retired from service. The proforma submitted is that of a minor penalty chargesheet prepared under Rule(vii) to
(ix) of Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 whereas the punishment awarded is a major penalty which cannot be awarded when the chargesheet is of a minor penalty.
(iv) The dates of increments mentioned in the duplicate service record created shows that the dates of increments have shifted in 1991,1992,1993 and also in 1996 due to leave without pay. Further, there is no entry of grant of increment from after 1996 and he is shown to be a long absentee.
(v) No entry of compulsory retirement has been made in the service record.
(vi) Medical card has not been submitted, instead some OPD papers only have been produced. Privilege passes have also not been shown.
9. Service Book has to be retained for five years after the death or retirement of a Government servant. And as per the preservation of record for Establishment matters of the Railways, records of Disciplinary proceedings are also to be retained for three years after the final disposal of appeal. The case has been preferred after almost 14 years since the compulsory retirement of the Government servant and so in the absence of records with so many loose ends and also the fact that the case is time barred, there doesn't seem to be any merit in the OA.
10. The OA therefore, is dismissed. All pending M.A.s, if any, stand disposed of.
11. No order as to costs.
(Manju Pandey) ( Rajnish Kumar Rai)
Member (A) Member (J)
/Vivek/