SMT GEETA YADAV vs NORTH CENTRAL RAILWAY

(R ESERVED ON – 18.08.2026)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD

th
Pronounced on this the 7 day of September, 2026.

Original Application No.1125 of 2022.

Hon’ble Ms. Manju Pandey, Member (A)

Smt. Geeta Yadav aged about 58 years, Wife of Late Sher Singh
retired Gang Man of Unit No.40 from P.W.I. Badi Line, Gwalior R/o
Gram Richari Post Morare Distirct-Datia.
----- Applicants
By Advocate: Shri S.M.Ali

VERSUS

1. Union of India through General Manager Head Quarter North
Central Railway, Subedarganj, Prayagraj.
2. Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway, Jhansi.
3. Senior Divisional Engineer, North Central Railway, Jhansi.
4. Divisional Engineer North Central Railway, Dholpur.
----Respondents
By Advocate:Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha
O R D E R

Heard Shri S. M. Ali learned counsel for the applicant and Shri
Krishna Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This Original Application is filed under section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, seeking following reliefs:-
8. (i) To issue order or direction, to the competent
authority/respondents to pay the amount of gratuity,
P.F., leave encashment, Group insurance, etc other
due benefits and arrears of pensions, w.e.f. 06.08.2004
along with 12% interest from the date of compulsory
retirement order dated 06.08.2004 up to death date
07.04.2019 of the deceased employment with all other
consequential benefits.
(ii) To issue order or direction to the respondents pay
arrears of family pension to the applicant w.e.f.
08.04.2019 to till actual payment date along with 12%
Page 1 of 6

VIVEK
RAWAT

interest or to pay the family pension continuously to the
applicant under the 75 of Rules Pension-1993.
(iii) To issue order or direction to the respondents pass
any such and further order as deem fit in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
(iv) Award of the cost of petition in favour of the
applicant.

The Brief facts of the case as stated by the applicant are that the
3.
husband of the applicant, Late Sher Singh, was working as a Gangman
in Unit No. 40 under P.W.I., Badi Line, Gwalior, and remained on sick
leave from 04.01.2003, but could not resume duty up to 03.09.2003 on
account of medical treatment, pursuant to which a charge-sheet dated
03.10.2003 was issued alleging unauthorized absence for the period
from 04.01.2003 to 03.09.2003. Thereafter, he appeared for duty on
24.01.2004 and submitted a representation along with medical
documents, and subsequently submitted a sick-fit certificate issued by
the Railway Hospital dated 13.02.2004, requesting that he be permitted
to resume duty and assuring that he would not remain absent in future.
However, the Divisional Engineer, Dholpur, passed an order dated
14.06.2004 removing him from service without conducting the
departmental enquiry as required under the Railway Servants
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. Aggrieved thereby, he preferred
an appeal dated 17.07.2004, which was decided by the appellate
authority on 06.08.2004, whereby the punishment of removal from
service was converted into compulsory retirement with full retiral
benefits. Thereafter, he submitted an application to the Senior
Divisional Engineer (North), Jhansi, seeking setting aside of the order
of compulsory retirement and reinstatement in service in view of the
poor financial condition of his family. Subsequently, the Senior Section
Engineer, Gwalior, issued a letter dated 27.12.2005 directing him to
Page 2 of 6

VIVEK
RAWAT

receive the settlement dues, pension and other benefits pursuant to the
compulsory retirement order dated 06.08.2004. He again submitted a
reminder in June 2006 seeking reinstatement in service in lieu of
compulsory retirement and, thereafter, submitted a representation
dated 11.07.2018 to the Divisional Railway Manager, North Central
Railway, Jhansi, claiming payment of retiral dues, pension and other
admissible benefits; however, no payment towards gratuity, provident
fund, leave encashment, group insurance, other retiral dues or pension
was made during his lifetime. The husband of the applicant died on
07.04.2019, and his death certificate was issued by Nagar Nigam,
Ujjain, on 26.04.2019, without receiving the aforesaid retiral and
pensionary benefits. The applicant, being the widow of the deceased
employee, has stated that the deceased left behind his widow, Smt.
Geeta Yadav, and three children, namely Kiran (daughter), Arun and
Neeraj (sons), whose names were duly mentioned in his declaration.
The applicant claims that, in view of the compulsory retirement order
dated 06.08.2004, the deceased employee was entitled to all retiral
and settlement dues, arrears of pension and other admissible benefits,
and after his death, she is entitled to family pension and all such dues
in accordance with the applicable rules and principles of natural justice.
Having no other efficacious remedy, the applicant has been
constrained to file the present Original Application under Section 19 of
the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Hence this original application.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has filed
the counter affidavit and stated that the husband of the applicant, Late
Sher Singh, was working as a Gangman and was unauthorizedly
absent from duty, pursuant to which the competent authority issued a
Page 3 of 6

VIVEK
RAWAT

major charge-sheet dated 03.10.2003 and, after conducting the
departmental enquiry, passed an order removing him from service.
Thereafter, the appellate authority, on humanitarian grounds,
converted the punishment of removal from service into compulsory
retirement vide order dated 06.04.2004, subject to grant of 1/3rd part of
pension. Following the said order of compulsory retirement, the
competent authority sanctioned gratuity of Rs.16,172/-, out of which
Rs.24,027/- was adjusted towards the ECC Bank loan and Rs.7,855/-
was paid to the deceased employee, who subsequently deposited the
balance amount of the bank loan in cash. It has further been stated
that the amounts of NCPF of Rs.7,323/-, GIS of Rs.902/- and leave
salary of Rs.332/- were paid to the husband of the applicant vide C.O.7
No.1545 dated 01.02.2013, and no amount remained outstanding
towards the said dues. The respondents have further contended that
the deceased employee had not completed the requisite 10 years of
qualifying service for grant of pension/family pension and, therefore,
neither he was entitled to pensionary benefits beyond those sanctioned
under the compulsory retirement order nor the applicant, after his
death, was entitled to family pension under the applicable rules. On the
basis of the aforesaid facts, the respondents have asserted that they
committed no illegality or infirmity in dealing with the case of the
applicant, that all admissible dues were duly released and paid to the
deceased employee, and that the Original Application as well as the
interim relief sought therein were without merit and liable to be
dismissed, in the interest of justice.
5. I have heard the learned counsels of both the sides and have
gone through the pleadings in details.
Page 4 of 6

VIVEK
RAWAT

6. It is the case of the Applicant that the applicant’s husband was
working as a Gangman and was unauthorizedly absent from duty,
pursuant to which a major charge-sheet dated 03.10.2003 was issued
to him and after the departmental enquiry; an order was passed by the
disciplinary authority removing him from service. The appellate
authority, however, converted the punishment of removal from service
into compulsory retirement vide order dated 06.04.2004, with the
condition to grant 1/3rd of the pension.The husband of the Applicant
represented for grant of pension and other retiral dues and died on
07.04.2019 without receiving any retiral dues. The Applicant, who is
the wife of the late employee has asked for direction to the authorities
to pay the amount of gratuity, PF, leave encashment, group insurance
and arrears of pension along with 12% interest and payment of family
pension.
7. In this case, while the punishment of removal of service was
converted to compulsory retirement, with the condition to grant 1/3rd of
the pension, the deceased employee, as informed by the
Respondents, had not completed 10 years of qualifying service which
is required for pension/family pension and therefore the same was not
sanctioned to him. As far as the rest of the retiral benefits are
concerned, the same were paid to the employee as detailed by the
Respondents vide CO7 No.1545 dt 01.02.2013.
8. Learned counsel for the Applicant relied upon Rule 75(2) of the
Railway Pension rules regarding the grant of family pension. However,
Rule 75(2) is about grant of family pension in cases where the Railway
servant dies after completion of one year of continuous service or
before completion of one year continuous service provided the
Page 5 of 6

VIVEK
RAWAT

deceased railway servant concerned immediately prior to his
appointment to the service or post was examined by the appropriate
medical authority and declared fit. In the present case, the Railway
servant died after he was compulsorily retired from service. However,
he did not complete the requisite number of years for grant of
pension/family pension.
9. In view of the Railway Pension Rules and the fact that qualifying
service of 10 years as required for pension had not been completed
before the employee was compulsorily retired from service, and all the
other eligible dues have already been paid, there seems to be no merit
in the case.
10. The OA is accordingly dismissed. All pending MAs, if any, are
also dismissed. No order as to costs.

(Ms. Manju Pandey)
Member (A)

vivek/

Page 6 of 6

VIVEK
RAWAT