Union Of India & Ors. vs Shrimati Moharshri
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~63
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3357/2025 and CM APPL. 15857/2025
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Shashank Dixit, CGSC
with Mr. Kunal Raj, Adv.
Mr. Devvrat Yadav, SPC with Mr. Kartik
Sharma, GP
versus
SHRIMATI MOHARSHRI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Sr. Adv.
with Ms. Muskan Jain, Mr. Pranava Rastogi,
Ms. Khushi Sood and Ms. Ashu Tiwari,
Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 12.05.2026
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. This is an extremely unfortunate case.
2. OA 10/1999, instituted by the petitioner for being disbursed the
retiral benefits due to her husband, was allowed by the Central
1
Administrative Tribunal on 2 August 2001. For reasons unknown
and which we do not wish to guess, the Railways, as the respondent
before the Tribunal and the petitioner in the present writ petition,
chose, with abject impunity, not to comply with the order of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:19.05.2026
11:37:49
W.P.(C) 3357/2025 Page 1 of 11
Tribunal. After fighting, for her due entitlement, for years, the
respondent departed for a better world. The legal heirs of the
respondent are now having to continue to battle for the same relief.
3. To say the least, we are shocked.
4. Ajab Singh, an employee of the Northern Railways, expired on
4 January 1988. The respondent Moharshri was the widow of Ajab
Singh. During the course of proceedings in this Court, she, too, has
expired, and this writ petition is, therefore, being prosecuted by her
legal heirs.
5. Moharshri moved the Tribunal by way of OA 10/1999, seeking
release of family pension, as well as arrears thereof, to her, consequent
on the death of Ajab Singh. By a judgment dated 2 August 2001, the
Tribunal allowed OA 10/1999 in the following terms:
“ 11. In the circumstances afore-said, reading together through a
harmonious construction of the interpretation given the Hon'ble
2
Supreme Court in the cases of State of Haryana Vs. Piara Singh
3
(Supra), Malati Kar Vs. UOI (Supra) and Ram Kumar's case as
also bearing in mind the provisions of rule 101 of the Railway
Pension, Rules, we are inclined to hold that the deceased husband
of the applicant was entitled to be regularized in service at least
from the date of his death, and as such the present applicant is also
entitled to the family pension as per rules.”
12. So following the same principle I hold that the applicant is
entitled to be regularized from the date of his death and his family
cannot be allowed to suffer to the respondents are directed to grant
family pension to the applicant as per rules, instructions and
judicial pronouncements on the subjects. This may be done within
a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
1
“the Tribunal” hereinafter
2
(1992) 4 SCC 118
3
(1992) 21 ATC 583
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:19.05.2026
11:37:49
W.P.(C) 3357/2025 Page 2 of 11
No costs.”
6. There was, therefore, a clear and categorical direction, as far
back as on 2 August 2001, a quarter of a century ago, for disbursal of
family pension to Smt. Moharshri. It is shocking that, despite the
passage of 25 years since then, not only was family pension in terms
of the order passed by the Tribunal not paid to Smt. Moharshri, but
after her having expired, the Railways are continuing to contest this
petition against the legal heirs of Smt. Moharshri.
7. Significantly, to a query from the Court as to whether there is
any justification for not complying with the order dated 2 August
2001, Mr. Dixit, learned CGSC for the petitioner, fairly submits that
he has no answer.
8. Continuing with the recital of facts, we may note that the
Railways sought a review of the judgment dated 2 August 2001 from
the Tribunal by way of RA 352/2001, which was also dismissed by
the Tribunal on 19 November 2001. The matter was carried further to
this Court by way of WP (C) 1110/2002. Initially, by order dated 14
February 2002, this Court issued rule in the writ petition, notice in the
stay application and stayed the operation of the order of the Tribunal.
The writ petition itself was taken up by this Court 11 years thereafter
on 7 August 2013. As no one appeared on behalf of the Railways and
process fee had also not been filed in the writ petition consequent to
issuance of notice, the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.
9. The Railways moved CM 1652-53/2014 for restoration of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:19.05.2026
11:37:49
W.P.(C) 3357/2025 Page 3 of 11
writ petition. By order dated 4 February 2014, notice was issued in the
restoration application, subject to deposit of costs of ₹ 50,000/-.
10. Neither were the costs deposited, nor was there any appearance
on behalf of the Railways, as a result of which, on 22 August 2014,
the application for restoration of the writ petition was also dismissed.
11. Despite this, the Railways, in an attitude which smacks of total
apathy, still did not release the family pension as directed by the
Tribunal as far back as on 2001.
12. The respondent, therefore, moved MA 402/2023 in OA 10/1999
seeking release of arrears of family pension to her as directed by the
Tribunal on 2 August 2001 in the said OA.
13. Before the Tribunal, the Railways sought to contend that the
MA was “hopelessly barred by time” and, therefore, was liable to be
dismissed. It was also sought to be contended that the application was
not maintainable and that the remedy with the respondent was to move
the Tribunal under Section 27 of the Administrative Tribunals Act,
4
1985 , within a period of one year from the passing of the order of
which enforcement was sought. That period having expired much
earlier in point of time, the Railways exhorted the Tribunal to dismiss
the MA.
14. The Tribunal, however, did not entertain the said request and
4
“the AT Act” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:19.05.2026
11:37:49
W.P.(C) 3357/2025 Page 4 of 11
proceeded to allow the MA, reasoning thus :
“10 The issue before us is, whether the limitation would come
in the way of releasing of retiral dues to the legal heir of the wife of
the deceased applicant pursuant to the Order dated 02.08.2001 in
OA No.10/1999. The Tribunal, had directed the respondents to
consider the deceased employee regularised from the date of his
death and that the applicant therein would be entitled to receive the
family pension as per the rules and instructions.
11 In the facts before us, the O.A. was decided by order dated
02.08.2001. The Review Application filed by the respondents was
dismissed on 09.11.2001. Thereafter, the Order dated 02.08.2001
was assailed by the respondents before the Hon’ble High Court
which attained finality in the year 2014. Between the years 2014 to
2016, the respondents were obliged to extend the benefit of the
order dated 02.08.2001 i.e., retiral dues to the wife of the deceased
employee. Evidently, the respondents have not done the same. In
the year 2016 itself, the respondents acted in a callous manner.
Thus, the wife of deceased employee was deprived of the benefits
of retiral dues and she died in the year 2016 and now her legal heir
has filed the instant MA. We are of the considered opinion that the
respondents cannot be allowed to take the benefit of their own
wrong.
12 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. Hira Lal Vs. State of
5
Bihar and Ors ., Civil Appeal No.1677-78 of 2020, has held that
pension is a right and not a bounty. It is a constitutional right for
which an employee is entitled on his superannuation. The instant
MA does not seek execution or allege willful disobedience of the
order dated 02.08.2001. Therefore, the objection of limitation
cannot be allowed to sustain.
13 The applicant in the OA has since passed away in the year
2016, the MA has been filed for appropriate directions. The dues of
the retirement as directed to be released in favour of the applicant
therein, are withheld by the respondents without any explanation,
which were to be released by them after the Order of the Tribunal
attained finality in the year 2014 itself. The applicant in OA
expired in the year 2016, yet the respondents chose not to comply
with the order. It is not in dispute that the husband of the applicant
in the OA was an employee of the respondents and the directions
since have attained finality, she was entitled to receive pension.
14 We cannot loose sight of the fact that the husband of the
5
(2020) 4 SCC 346
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:19.05.2026
11:37:49
W.P.(C) 3357/2025 Page 5 of 11
applicant was Gangman under Permanent Way Inspector Tundla,
Northern Railway, and being under the lower rung of the society,
wife of the applicant would possibly not be aware of the decision
in the Writ Petition. The applicant is stated to be legal heir of the
applicant in the OA and this fact has not been disputed by the
respondents.
15 It is a well settled law that pension is equivalent to right to
property, which in the present facts is in custody of the respondents
and, therefore, the legal heir is entitled for release of the same. In
view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dr. Hira
Lal (supra), the right of the misc. Applicant to receive pension is
equivalent to right to property under Article 31(1) and the
respondents have no power to withhold the same. Similarly, the
said claim is also property under Article 19(1)(f) and it is not saved
by Sub-article (5) of Article 19. Therefore, it follows that the order
denying the misc. applicant right to receive pension affects the
fundamental right of the deceased employee under Article 19(1)(f)
and 31(1) of the Constitution. Accordingly, the pension of the
deceased employee needs to be devolved to his legal heir.
16 In view of the above, the MA is allowed. The respondents
are directed to release the amount of family pension from
04.01.1988 to 15.10.2016 along with arrears of family pension to
the legal heir of the deceased employee, as per rules on the subject.
Since the legal heir of the applicant in OA and deceased employee
did not approach the Tribunal for the last eight years, to balance the
equity, they are not entitled to any interest on the retiral dues. The
said exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from
the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
There shall be no order as to costs.”
15. The Railways have now petitioned this Court against the
aforesaid decision of the Tribunal.
16. We have heard Mr. Shashank Dixit, learned CGSC for the
petitioner and Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, learned Senior Counsel for the
respondent, at some length.
17. Mr. Dixit submits that the Tribunal erred in entertaining the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:19.05.2026
11:37:49
W.P.(C) 3357/2025 Page 6 of 11
MA. He submits that the remedy with a litigant, who is aggrieved by
non-implementation of an order passed by the Tribunal, as per the
6
judgment of the Supreme Court in Hukum Raj Khinvsara v. UOI ,
7
was by way of an Execution Petition under Section 27 of the AT Act,
which had to be preferred within a period of one year of the passing of
the judgment of which execution was sought.
18. He, therefore, submits that the Tribunal ought not to have
entertained the application at such a belated stage.
8
19. Mr. Dixit also submits that Rule 24 of the CAT Procedure
9
Rules is akin to Section 151 of the CPC and that it is a settled
position that where adequate remedies exist elsewhere in the statute,
Section 151 of the CPC could not be invoked. Mutatis Mutandis , he
submits that where remedy by way of an execution petition under
Section 27 of the AT was available, Rule 24 of the CAT Procedure
Rules would not enure to the benefit of the litigant.
20. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we entirely agree
with the view taken by the Tribunal.
21. Mr. Dixit’s reliance on Section 151 CPC is, to our mind,
6
( 1997) 4 SCC 284
7
27. Execution of orders of a Tribunal . – Subject to the other provisions of this Act and the rules, the
order of a Tribunal finally disposing of an application or an appeal shall be final and shall not be called in
question in any court (including a High Court) and such order shall be executed in the same manner in which
any final order of the nature referred to in clause ( a ) of sub-section (2) of Section 20 (whether or not such
final order had actually been made) in respect of the grievance to which the application relates would have
been executed.
8
24. Orders and directions in certain cases . – The Tribunal may make such orders or give such
directions as may be necessary or expedient to give effect to its orders or to prevent abuse of its process or to
secure the ends of justice.
9
151. Saving of inherent powers of Court . – Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise
affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:19.05.2026
11:37:49
W.P.(C) 3357/2025 Page 7 of 11
misplaced. There is an obvious and glaring distinction between
Section 151 of the CPC and Section 27 of the AT Act. Section 151 of
the CPC has overarching powers as it starts by stating that nothing in
the code would affect the inherent power of the Court to pass orders
for the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.
Even so, it is true that Section 151 of the CPC is not available where
adequate remedies under other provisions exist.
22. In the present case, however, Section 27 of the AT Act has been
made subject to other provisions of the AT Act and the provisions of
the CAT Procedure Rules . As such, unlike the position which obtained
in the case of Section 151, the situation in the case of Section 27 of the
AT Act vis-à-vis Rule 24 of the CAT Procedure Rules would be the
exact reverse. As Section 27 of the AT Act has been made subject to
the Rules, if relief is available in any other provisions of the Rules, it
would be that relief that would have to be availed, and not Section 27
of the AT Act.
23. We have only, therefore, to see where the impugned order could
sustain in terms of Rule 24 of the Rules. The answer is obvious. Rule
24 of the Rules empowers the Tribunal to pass any order or directions
as may be necessary or expedient to give effect to its order or prevent
abuse of its process or secure the ends of justice. Directions having
been passed as far back as in 2001 to the Railways to disburse arrears
of family pension to Moharshri, no fault can be found with the
Tribunal in ensuring, at least at this late date, that the order is
prevent abuse of the process of the Court.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:19.05.2026
11:37:49
W.P.(C) 3357/2025 Page 8 of 11
complied with. The impugned order clearly falls within the scope of
the power of the Tribunal under rule 24 of the CAT Procedure Rules
to pass orders to give effect to its earlier orders as well as secure the
ends of justice.
24. We, in fact, have our serious misgivings as to whether the
Railways, having flouted with abject impunity, the direction of the
Tribunal issued as far back as in 2001, which attained finality even
before this Court in 2014, should at all be entitled to an audience
before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The
exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 is fundamentally
discretionary in nature. Article 226 is not open to invocation by a
party who does no equity or acts unfairly. The manner in which the
Railways have proceeded in this matter, especially keeping in mind
the fact that the recipient of the Railways’ treatment was a widow who
herself perished during the pendency of these proceedings, to our
mind, does not even permit the Railways to an audience before this
Court.
25. We express our serious displeasure at the manner in which the
Railways have acted in this matter. We may have been inclined to pass
orders to identify the officers concerned responsible for not
implementing the order of the Tribunal. However, given the lapse of
time, those officers would possibly be no longer holding the post
which they were holding at that point of time, or may have even
superannuated in the meanwhile.
26. The apathy with which the Railways have proceeded in this
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:19.05.2026
11:37:49
W.P.(C) 3357/2025 Page 9 of 11
case is clear from the fact that they never even cared to deposit the
costs of ₹ 50,000 which were imposed by this Court when they
applied for restoration of the writ petition. The attempt, therefore,
appears to have been, at every stage, to ensure that complete injustice
resulted to the respondent, who was constrained, in the circumstances,
to fight for her due entitlement till her last breath, without success.
27. In these circumstances, we are constrained to dismiss this writ
petition.
28. The benefits available to the respondents pursuant to the orders
of the Tribunal would be released within a period of six weeks from
today, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9%
per annum till actual payment.
29. The Railways has displayed at every stage, complete apathy
towards the respondent. It is a matter of regret that the petitioner shed
her mortal coil without seeing the benefits which were due to her in
terms of the order dated 2 August 2001 of the Tribunal. The least we
can do, in such circumstances, is to compensate her successors with
costs, to be paid, needless to say, by the Railways.
30. We, therefore, burden the Railways with costs, quantified at ₹
1,00,000/-, to be paid to the respondents within the aforesaid period of
six weeks.
31. The writ petition is dismissed, in the aforesaid terms.
32. Let an affidavit of compliance of the directions passed by us
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:19.05.2026
11:37:49
W.P.(C) 3357/2025 Page 10 of 11
today be positively placed on record by the Railways after six weeks.
33. List for reporting compliance on 10 July 2026.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.
MAY 12, 2026 /yg
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:19.05.2026
11:37:49
W.P.(C) 3357/2025 Page 11 of 11