Central Administrative Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Shantilal K Vasava vs M/O Railways on 22 January, 2026
::1 :: O.A.No.562/2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD BENCH
OA No.562 of 2016
Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2026
Reserved On : 13.08.2025
Pronounced On : 22.01.2026
CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Jayesh Bhairavia, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Hukum Singh Meena, Member (A)
Shri Shantilal K. Vasava
S/o. Kewalbhai vasava
Aged
ged 64 years,
Retired from Rly. Service as P/men, Bharuch.
R/o. A/39, Haridwar Township,
Bhilav, Bharuch-392
Bharuch 001. .....Applicant
(By Advocate: Ms.S.S.Chaturvedi)
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
Notice to be served through,
General Manager,
Western Railway,
Churchgate, Mumbal-400 020.
2. Divisional Railway Manager (E),
Western Railway,
Pratapnagar,
Baroda - 390 004.
.....Respondents
Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms.A.B.Makwana)
ORDER
Per : Hon'ble Dr. Hukum Singh Meena, Member (A)
Being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent regarding payment of IOD (Injured njured on Duty), the applicant has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking following relief:-
2026.01.22 SEEMA 16:23:47 SANTHOSH +05'30' ::2 :: O.A.No.562/2016 "(A) Lord ships be pleased to admit this petition. And be pleased to issue the direction to the respondent authority to released the IOD allowance (Injured on Duty) from the date of injury till the retirement with all consequential benefit."
(B) The Order for be call for the record. (C) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit.
(C) Cost of suit be awarded.
awarded."
2. Brief facts of the case of the applicant are as under:-
2.1 The applicant had worked as a Pointsman at Bharuch Railway Station and met with an accident on 13.12.2011 and lost his h right leg. Subsequently, CMP had issued the Sick Medical Certificate vide No.792431 dated 13.12.2011 (Annexure (Annexure-A/4). Thereafter, the discharge certificate was also issued vide No.7924231 dated 02.03.2012 (annexure-A/5) wherein it was stated that the applicant had undergone treatmen from 13.12.2011 to 02.03.2012 as IOD period. In treatment order to seek information, the applicant filed RTI application on 08.04.2015 for the IOD compensation. In response to the above, respondent replied vide letter No. G.542 /1/2015/243 dated 28.04.2015.
2.2 It is stated that in this regard, the Sr.DOM sanctioned payment of Rs.1,16,208/- towards lump sum compensation payable under Workmen Compensation Act 2023 for the loss of earning capacity @ 40% to the applicant. Therefore he submitted that he had been not paid adequate compensation for IOD as per laid down provisions in the Workmen Compensation Act, 2023 and approached this Tribunal for allowing his Original application.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant mainly submitted as under:
under:-
2026.01.22 SEEMA 16:23:47 SANTHOSH +05'30' ::3 :: O.A.No.562/2016 3.1 It is stated that in response to the RTI, the respondents issued CO-07 form in which it was mentioned that the payment of IOD was released as Rs.1,16,208/ Rs.1,16,208/- whereas in reply of the RTI received by the applicant, it was stated that the said amount was pertaining to Workmen Compensation.
3.2 He further contended that he was injured and admitted in the hospital for the period from 13.12.2011 to 02.03.2012.
Therefore, he was entitled for the payment as per IOD provision for the said period. Therefore, on the basis of the above, ove, he prayed that his application may be allowed.
3.3 Per contra, respondents filed reply wherein they have denied the averments made by the applicant and further submitted that during the period from 13.12.2011 to 02.03.2012 the payment of salary of this period had already 02.03.2012, been made to the applicant through his regular salary of November 2011 to March 2012. He had also submitted salary slip to corroborate his argument.
3.4 Counsel for the respondents also submitted that sanction of the IOD period had been obtained by the applicant with retrospective effect vide office letter No.ET/1216/3/2/19/11 dated 20.03.2015.
3.5 The counsel for the respondent further contended that the applicant had been paid leave encashment and retiral dues in addition to IOD allowance as per the provisions of Pension Rules.
ules. Therefore he prayed that the OA lacks merit and same may be dismissed.
4. The applicant filed MA for call for documents especially calculation slip for list of earning capacity of 40%. In response to the above, the respondent submitted calculation sheet along with relied document wherein they had reiterated that the calculation for IOD computation is based on minimum pay of 2026.01.22 SEEMA 16:23:47 SANTHOSH +05'30' ::4 :: O.A.No.562/2016 monthly wages (Rs.4000) x relevant age factor x 60% x 40% of the above calculation was Rs.1,16,208.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant had submitted written arguments wherein it was reiterated that the respondent had calculated IOD wages as Rs.4000 however as per the Gazette Notification, the monthly wages are decided as Rs.8000/- per month at the relevant point of time.
6. Counsel for the applicant further submitted that it is important to mention that the monthly wages/salary of the applicant was of Rs.12,310/- whereas the respondent had calculated the IOD compensation on the basis of minimum monthly wages as Rs.4000/- and the percentage of loss of earning was 10%, the respondents counted as 40%. After perusal of examination of the documents available, in the payment dated 13.12.2011 the applicant lost his 40% of earning capacity as per report submitted by the DMO(s) which is also enclosed with the documents.
7. Heard both the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the contextual directions and guidelines especially for the IOD compensation.
8. Perused the definition of the employee in the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. In this case, it is evident from the fact that the applicant is covered under the provisions of IOD compensation The explanation with reference to the Railway compensation.
employees, relevant para of Workmen Compensation Act, is reproduced herein below:-
"Paragraph (2)(dd) of India's Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 (formerly Workmen's Compensation Act) defines "employee" to include specific categories like railway servants (not in administrative roles), crew of ships/aircraft, and those working with motor vehicles (drivers, mechanics, etc.), expanding coverage beyond typical factory workers to include those in transportation and other listed 2026.01.22 SEEMA 16:23:47 SANTHOSH +05'30' ::5 :: O.A.No.562/2016 hazardous occupations, ensuring they receive compensation for work-related related injuries."
Clause 34 of Section (2) of the Railway Act reads as under:-
Clause (34) of Section 2 of the Railways Act, 1989 is referenced in the definition of "employee" (previously "Workmen")") under Section 2(1)(n) of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (formerly the Workmen's Compensation Act).
The reference specifies ifies that a person is considered an "employee" for the purposes of the Employee's Compensation Act if they are:
A railway servant as defined in clause (34) of Section 2 of the Railways Act, 1989. Not permanently employed in any administrative, district, or sub-divisional divisional office of a railway. Not employed in any capacity specified in Schedule II of the Employee's Compensation Act.
9. It is evident that employees are covered under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 in case of injury during duty. Mere perusal of the above provision in the Act it is contended that IOD compensations calculated based on the relevant age factor of the employees; monthly salary/wages and percentage of loss of earning. After perusal of the calculation submitted by the respondent, it is clear that the respondent had taken Rs.4,000/- as minimum Pay of Monthly Wages of the Employee on 13.12.2022 whereas as per the statement submitted by both the parties, regular salary of the employee was of Rs.12,310/- on the date of accident. Therefore, under what circumstances, the respondent had taken minimum wages fixed for the labour for calculation of IOD whereas as per the provisions of Workmen Compensation Act 1923, 1923 his calculation should be squarely based on monthly salary of the employee at the relevant time of the injury. It is calculated as per the provision laid down under Section 4(c) of the ibid Act which stipulates as follow:
follow:-
2026.01.22 SEEMA 16:23:47 SANTHOSH +05'30' ::6 :: O.A.No.562/2016 "4(c) 4(c) where permanent partial disablement results from the injury. (i) in the case of an injury specified of the compensation which would have been payable in the case of permanent total disablement as of the loss of earning capacity caused by that injury, and (ii) in the case of an injury not specified ied compensation payable in the case of permanent total disablement as is proportionate to the los qualified medical practitioner) permanently caused by the injury.
injury."
10. Therefore in view of the above above, the previous order of the respondent authority decided IOD compensation is quashed and set aside and OA is allowed with the following directions:
(i) The respondents are directed to calculate the IOD compensation according to the procedure as laid down by taking correct minimum pay of monthly wages of the employee and relevant age factor as per the provisions in the Section 4 of Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 1923.
(ii) This exercise shall be completed within 90 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.
Pending MA, MA, if any also stands disposed of. No order as to Costs.
(Hukum Singh Meena) (Jayesh V. Bhairavia)
Member (A) Member (J)
SKV
2026.01.22
SEEMA
16:23:47
SANTHOSH
+05'30'