Minakshi vs NORTHERN RAILWAY

Item 3/C-2 1 OA No. 1239/2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH, CHANDIGARH

OA No. 1239/2026

th
On this the 5 day of October, 2026



CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)

Minakshi aged 32 years W/o Late Sh. Sandeep Kumar R/o
Village Ghari Hakikat District Sonipat Haryana – 13001 (Aadhaar
No. 743582070864)
….Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Neeraj Kumar)

Versus

1. Union of India through the General Manager, Northern
Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi - 110001
2. Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Firozpur
Division, Firozpur Cantt., Punjab
3. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Northern Railway,
Firozpur Division, Firozpur Cantt., Punjab
4. Senior Divisional Finance Manager, Northern Railway,
Firozpur Division, Firozpur Cantt., Punjab

…. Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC with Ms. Palak Singla)
B. Shri B. Shri
Akshaya Juneja Akshaya Juneja

Item 3/C-2 2 OA No. 1239/2026

O R D E R (ORAL)

The present original application has been filed by the
applicant under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act,
1985, seeking the following relief(s):-
“i) declare the continuing inaction/non-decision on the Applicant's
representations dated 25.08.2025 and 15.10.2025 to be illegal and
arbitrary;
(ii) declare that Late Shri Sandeep Kumar died while returning to his
headquarters immediately after assigned duty and that his death is to
be treated as having occurred on duty / in the course of service, or
direct the competent authority to make that determination by a
reasoned speaking order after considering Annexures A-3 to A-9:
(iii) direct the respondents to sanction and release to the Applicant, after
verification of nomination/family particulars, all admissible death and
terminal dues, including family pension (ordinary and/or extraordinary,
as lawfully admissible], death gratuity, NPS corpus/employee
contribution with returns as applicable, leave encashment, group
insurance benefits, unpaid salary, provident-fund/NPS dues and any
other consequential benefit under the applicable Railway Board
instructions;
(iv) direct that the above exercise be completed by a reasoned order
within four weeks and that all admitted amounts be released within a
further four weeks, with interest at a rate this Hon'ble Tribunal
considers just on delayed payments from their due dates”

2. The brief facts of the case as pleaded are that the husband
of the applicant, Shri Sandeep Kumar (now deceased) was
appointed on 28.12.2015 (Annexure A-1) in Northern Railway,
Firozpur Division for the post of Trackman under the open
market recruitment process. He joined the Railway service and
served as Trackman/Gangman. On 13.03.2025, while the
husband of the applicant, after completing his duty from 08:00
hours to 20:00 hours at Gate No. C-39 was proceeding back to
his headquarters, met with fatal road accident and died. The said
B. Shri B. Shri
Akshaya Juneja Akshaya Juneja

Item 3/C-2 3 OA No. 1239/2026

accident was reported to Police Station Sadar Faridkot vide
General Diary No. 17 dated 14.03.2015. The applicant submitted
a representation dated 25.08.2025 (Annexure A-8) to the Senior
Divisional Personnel Officer, Firozpur, seeking release of death
benefits. In response to an RTI request, the Assistant Divisional
Engineer-I, Northern Railway, Firozpur, supplied information
dated 18.08.2025 (Annexure A-9) answering in the affirmative,
that the employee's death was considered “on duty”. The
applicant submitted a further representation dated
14/15.10.2025 (Annexure A-10) requesting that her husband be
treated died on duty and that all benefits be released. Despite the
aforesaid representations, the respondents have neither passed a
speaking order nor released the benefits. The applicant, being a
young widow, with no independent means of livelihood, has
thereby been left without the financial protection provided by the
service rules.
3. Being aggrieved by inaction of the respondents, the
applicant approached the Tribunal by way of the present OA,
seeking direction to the respondents for sanction and release of
ex-gratia lumpsum compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- to the
applicant under Railway Board RBE No. 139/2016, dated
25.11.2016 (Annexure A/12), for death of her husband due to an
accident in the course of performance of bona fide official duties,
B. Shri B. Shri
Akshaya Juneja Akshaya Juneja

Item 3/C-2 4 OA No. 1239/2026

along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date the amount
became due till the date of actual payment.
4. The applicant, in support of her case, relies upon the
decision dated 12.12.2019 of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court
in Union of India vs. Smt. Satyawati , wherein the case of a
Railway employee, who met with an accident while proceeding
towards the Railway Station to join his duty upheld the direction
for payment of admissible ex-gratia benefit. She has also relied
upon the decision in N. Vijaya v. Ministry of Railways — CAT,
V.V.V. Lakkshmi v. Ministry of Railways — CAT Hyderabad
death in course of employment with RBE 139/2016, General
Manager, Northern Railway v. R.R. Verma . It has been
pleaded that the said principle is consistent with the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in General Manager, B.E.S.T.
Undertaking, Bombay vs. Mrs. Agnes, reported in (1964) 3
SCR 930 , wherein the doctrine of notional extension was
recognized, and subsequently considered in Manju Sarkar v.
Mabish Miah, reported in (2014) 14 SCC 21.
5. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant submits
that the applicant will be satisfied, if the present OA is treated as
her representation and the same is decided by the Competent
Authority amongst the respondents in a time bound manner.
B. Shri B. Shri
Akshaya Juneja Akshaya Juneja

Item 3/C-2 5 OA No. 1239/2026

6. Mr. Sanjay Goyal, learned Sr. CGSC has put in appearance
on behalf of all the respondents, on receipt of advance copy of the
OA. Learned counsel for respondents submitted that they have
no objection, if the OA is disposed of in the manner suggested by
learned counsel for the applicant.
7. In view of the consequential agreement between the parties,
the OA stands disposed of at the admission stage itself, without
commenting upon the merits of the case, with a direction to the
Competent Authority amongst the respondents to treat the
present OA as the representation of the applicant and consider
the contention of the applicant in accordance with rules and law,
by passing a reasoned and speaking order, within a period of
eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
Order. Thereafter, a copy of speaking order shall be provided to
the applicant within two weeks.
8. In view of the aforesaid, the OA stands disposed of
accordingly. No order as to costs.


(SURESH KUMAR BATRA)
MEMBER (J)


/akshaya/

B. Shri B. Shri
Akshaya Juneja Akshaya Juneja