Minakshi yadav and others vs NORTHERN RAILWAY

(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad
th
This the 27 day of August, 2026
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (Judicial)

Original Application No. 259 of 2026

1. Minakshi Yadav @ Meenu, aged about 32 years, Daughter of Late
Ramchandra Prasad, Wife of Shri Kamal Singh Yadav, resident of
605/R, Railway Loco Colony, Nawab Yusuf Road, Valmiki
Chauraha, Prayagraj.
2. Nitesh Kumar @ Raja Munna, aged about 29 years, Son of Late
Ramchandra Prasad, resident of 605/R, Railway Loco Colony,
Nawab Yusuf Road, Valmiki Chauraha, Prayagraj.
3. Nagesh Kumar, aged about 24 years, Son of Late Ramchandra
Prasad, resident of 605/R, Railway Loco Colony, Nawab Yusuf
Road, Valmiki Chauraha, Prayagraj.
……….. APPLICANTS
By Advocate: Shri Pradeep Kumar Dubey
Versus
1. Union of India through the General Manager, Northern Railway,
Baroda House, New Delhi.
2. Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, State Entry Road,
New Delhi.
3. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Northern Railway, State Entry
Road, New Delhi.
4. Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (RS), Electric Loco Shed,
Northern Railway, Ghaziabad.
.……… RESPONDENTS
By Advocate: Shri Ajay Kumar Rai
RITU RAJ

SINGH

1 | P a g e

ORDER
Shri Pradeep Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicants
and Shri Ajay Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondents were
present at the time of hearing.
2. The instant original application has been filed by the applicant
seeking following relief:
“i. This Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash and set aside
the impugned order dated 21.01.2025 passed by respondent No 4
(Annexure No A-1)
ii. This Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to direct the
respondents to release the pension and post retiral benefits of Late
Ramchandra Prasad and pay the same to the applicant with interest @
12% per annum from 24.01.2008 till the date of actual payment.
iii. To issue any other and further relief which this Hon’ble Tribunal may
deem fit and proper be also awarded to the applicant.
iv. Cost of proceeding be awarded to the applicant.”
3. The brief facts of the case as narrated in the OA are that the
applicants are challenging the order dated 21.01.2025 passed by the
respondent no 5 through which their claim for release of post retiral
benefits of Late Ramchandra Prasad, who was employed under the
respondent no 4 on the post of Chaukidar, have been denied on the
ground that the name of the applicants was not matched with the
names mentioned in the medical card. By way of this original
application, the applicants are praying for a direction against the
respondents to release the post retiral benefits of Late Ramchandra
Prasad with interest w.e.f. 24.01.2008 till the date of actual payment.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the mother of
the applicants namely Nirmala Devi died during the lifetime of Late
Ramchandra Prasad, i.e., the father of the applicants. Later, when
father of the applicants died on 23.01.2008 during service period, the
applicants were minor and were not in a position to approach the
respondents regarding release of retiral benefits. When the applicants
RITU RAJ
attained the age of majority, they approached before the respondents
SINGH
seeking family pension and other benefits and filed representations
2 | P a g e

dated 25.07.2024 and 27.12.2024 but for no avail and later by way of
impugned order dated 21.01.2025, their plea was rejected. It was
further argued that the case of the applicants is covered by RBE No
70/2014 issued by the Railway Board, Ministry of Railways. It was
further argued that along with the representations submitted by the
applicants, they have also submitted an affidavit clearly stating that
their childhood names are Meenu and Raja Munna, which are
mentioned in the service record of the employee concerned and thus
both the persons are same. Thus, referring to entire facts and
circumstances, prayer was made to allow the OA thereby directing
the respondents to grant pension and post retiral benefits of Late
Ramchandra Prasad to the applicants along with interest and to also
quash the order dated 21.01.2025.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents referring to the facts
disclosed in the counter affidavit argued that as per Railway Medical
Card No 7671 issued on 01.01.1993, the family details of the decease
employee as recorded include Smt Nirmala (wife of the deceased
employee), Raja Munna aged 3 years as on 01.01.1993 and Meenu
aged 4 years as on 01.11.1993. The applicants have not submitted
any documentary evidence to establish that Meenu is the same person
as Meenakshi and Raja Munna is the same person as Nitesh Kumar.
Thus, the claim of the applicants was without any documentary
proof. Furthermore, as per the identity card issued on dated
01.11.1993, the children were aged 4 and 3 years, therefore, on
23.01.2008, their ages would have been about 18 and 17 years
respectively. Thus, considering all these facts, the claim of the
applicants was rejected by way of a reasoned and speaking order
dated 21.01.2025 to which no illegality or irregularity can be
attributed.
7. Rejoinder has been filed by the applicant rebutting the
averments of the counter and reiterating the facts of the case as
narrated in the OA.
RITU RAJ
8. I have considered the rival contentions and gone through the
SINGH
records.
3 | P a g e

9. The applicants are praying for pension and retiral dues of Late
Ramchandra Prasad, who died while being in the service of the
respondents. However, the respondents have rejected the claim of the
applicants by way of order dated 21.01.2025 recording that no
documentary evidence has been brought on record by the applicants
to ascertain or establish the fact that they are the genuine legal heirs
of the deceased employee. It is evident from the pleadings exchanged
across the Bar as well as the facts and documents brought on record
by the contesting parties that while issuing the order dated
21.01.2025, the respondents have not conducted a thorough inquiry
or given any opportunity of hearing to the applicants to establish their
case or to supply any documentary evidence in support of their claim.
Thus, in such circumstances, the order dated 21.01.2025 cannot be
termed to be a reasoned and speaking order. Having heard the learned
counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the records, I am of
the considered view that it would be in the fitness of things as well as
in the interest of justice if the respondents are directed to reconsider
the case of the applicants in a time bound manner by conducting a
thorough inquiry of the matter.
10. Thus, in view of the aforesaid analysis, the instant original
application is disposed of at this stage itself and order dated
21.01.2025 is hereby quashed and set aside. The competent authority
amongst the respondents is hereby directed to reconsider the case of
the applicants conducting a thorough inquiry in this matter by fixing
dates to allow the applicants to submit the requisite documentary
evidence in support of their claim. Considering the same, the
respondents shall inquire into the issue by passing a reasoned and
speaking order. Needless to reiterate, during consideration of the
case, the applicants shall be given reasonable and adequate
opportunity of hearing. If the claim of the applicants is established,
the respondents shall forthwith release the entire post retiral dues
pertaining to the deceased employee. As regards to the issue of
RITU RAJ
pension / family pension, the same shall be released in favour of the
SINGH
applicants in accordance with the extant Pension Rules. This exercise
4 | P a g e

shall be completed within a period of five months from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this order, without fail.

11. All associated MAs stand disposed of accordingly. No costs.


(Justice Om Prakash VII)
Member (Judicial)

(Ritu Raj)
RITU RAJ
SINGH
5 | P a g e