Mina Devi vs The Union of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16683 of 2026
CNR No. BRHC010975412026
======================================================
Mina Devi Wife of Late Mishri Mahto, Resident of Ward No. -01, Basahi,
Churamanchak, District- Begusarai, Bihar-851133.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India through the General Manager, East Cental Railway,
Hajipur, Vaishali - 8441101.
2. The General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur, Pin Code-844101,
Vaishali.
3. The Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway, Sonpur, Vaishali -
841101.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Muskan Singh, Advocate
Mr. Sudhir Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Kumar Rupesh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ram Tujabh Singh, CGC
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
Date : 05-11-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondents.
2. Petitioner in the present writ application is seeking
the following reliefs:-
i. Because the Hon'ble Central
Administrative Tribunal has failed to appreciate that
the claim raised by the petitioner concerns
recurring and continuing consequences arising from
the non-payment of settlement and retiral benefits.
ii. Because the Tribunal rejected the

Patna High Court CWJC No.16683 of 2026 dt.05-11-2026
2/9
application for condonation of delay without
adequately considering the circumstances pleaded
by the petitioner and without examining whether the
delay, if any, was required to be condoned in the
interest of substantial justice.
iii. Because the Tribunal entered into
observations regarding the merits of the petitioner's
claim while considering the application for
condonation of delay and thereby effectively
prejudiced the Original Application without a
complete adjudication on merits.
iv. Because the finding that the petitioner
had failed to establish the death of her husband has
been recorded without proper adjudication of the
evidentiary circumstances surrounding the
disappearance of the petitioner's husband and the
materials relied upon by the respective parties.
v. Because the respondents themselves
were required to produce and establish the service
records upon which they sought to rely while
rejecting the claim of the petitioner.
vi. Because the material available on
record indicates that the petitioner had sought
information regarding the service records of her
husband through the Right to Information Act, but
she was informed that the relevant records were not
available with the concerned authority.
vii. Because the petitioner cannot be non-
suited merely on account of delay when the claim
concerns the alleged entitlement arising out of the
service of her husband and the consequences of the
rejection continue to affect the petitioner.
viii. Because the impugned order dated
31.07.2026 suffers from non-consideration of
relevant facts and circumstances and is liable to be

Patna High Court CWJC No.16683 of 2026 dt.05-11-2026
3/9
interfered with in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of
this Hon'ble Court.”
3. This is the case of the petitioner that her husband
namely, Shri Mishri Mahto was appointed in the Railway
Administration on 04.09.1974 as a Box Khalasi/Loco Shed
employee at Muzaffarpur. Later on, the husband of the petitioner
went missing and remained unauthorizedly absent from service
with effect from 30.05.1994, for which the Railway
Administration had taken action against him.
4. It is stated that the petitioner filed an application
under the Right to Information Act before the competent
authority seeking information relating to the service status and
records of her husband, but she was communicated that relevant
records were not available in the office of the concerned
authority.
5. Being aggrieved by the said information and failure
of the respondents to consider and settle the claim of the
petitioner, she had approached the learned Tribunal, Patna
Bench, by filing O.A. No. 050/00870/2023. The said Original
Application was disposed of by the learned Tribunal with a
direction to the competent authority to consider and dispose of
the representation of the petitioner.
6. It is stated that the petitioner submitted a detailed

Patna High Court CWJC No.16683 of 2026 dt.05-11-2026
4/9
representation dated 23.01.2024 before the competent authority
seeking release of the settlement and retiral dues of her husband.
However, the said representation came to be rejected vide
speaking order dated 07.10.2024 (Annexure-P/5).
7. Being aggrieved by the rejection of her
representation vide Annexure-P/5, the petitioner once again
moved the learned Tribunal for grant of the benefits claimed by
her. The learned Tribunal considered the Original Application
being O.A. No. 305 of 2026, together with the Miscellaneous
Application No. 264 of 2026, by which the petitioner sought
condonation of delay. However, in the ultimate analysis, the
Original Application of the petitioner did not find favour with
the Tribunal. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal, vide order
dated 02.07.2026, sought response from the respondents against
the application for condonation of delay. However, without
awaiting the response from the respondents in M.A. No. 264 of
2026, the Tribunal heard the matter on merits. The grievance of
the petitioner is that even as the Tribunal did not seek any
counter affidavit from the respondents with respect to the
pleadings made in O.A. No. 050/00305 of 2026, the impugned
order dated 31.07.2026 came to be passed. Despite the same, the
Tribunal has rejected the original application of the petitioner.

Patna High Court CWJC No.16683 of 2026 dt.05-11-2026
5/9
8. In the aforementioned background, the present writ
application has been preferred challenging the order passed by
the learned Tribunal.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once
the petitioner, in the Original Application had made a statement
raising her grievance with regard to non-settlement of the retiral
benefits, it was incumbent upon the Railway Administration to
settle the dues.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents, however,
submits that a bare perusal of the speaking order (AnnexureP/5)
would show that the whole foundation of the claim of the
applicant-petitioner is based on an unfounded premise that the
husband of the applicant has died. It is submitted that the
applicant admits in the Original Application that the service of
her husband was terminated on 02.01.2007. So far as the claim
of the applicant-petitioner that her husband had disappeared
since 1994 and that there has been no information regarding him
till date is concerned, the same is based on false statements. The
applicant-petitioner is liable to be proceeded against in
accordance with law.
11. To strengthen his submissions, learned counsel for
the respondents has taken this Court through the speaking order

Patna High Court CWJC No.16683 of 2026 dt.05-11-2026
6/9
(Annexure-P/5). It is pointed out that the applicant-petitioner
had a matrimonial discord with her husband and had filed a
complaint against her husband at Begusarai Court. Later on, in
this case, her husband was sent to jail also. It is stated in the
speaking order that after release from jail, the employee
reported for his duty on 31.07.2007, but as the employee had
been unathorizedly absent since 30.05.1994, the Railway
Administration had removed him from service vide letter dated
15.09.1998. The speaking order records that, later on, his wife
had made a false claim before the CAT, Patna for getting
settlement benefits. It is submitted that, in fact, the Railway
authorities verified all the available documents as well as the
representation of Mishri Mahto (Ex employee) and finally came
to the conclusion that since the employee is alive, no question
arise to pay any settlement dues to his wife.
12. We have given our anxious consideration to the
materials available on record and the submissions noted herein.
Since the speaking order contains relevant and significant
information, we would reproduce the speaking order
(AnnexureP/5) hereunder for a ready reference:-
“ Speaking Order
Office of the
DRM / Sonpur

Patna High Court CWJC No.16683 of 2026 dt.05-11-2026
7/9
Smt. Mina Devi
W/o Shri Mishri Mahto
(BaksaKhalasi/DieselLobby/Muzaffarpur)
Ward No.1, Basahi, Distt.-Begusarai,
Churamachale, Bihar-851133
In compliance of the order dated 19.12.23,
passed by the Hon'ble CAT/Patna in OA No.
050/00870/2023, the undersigned has gone through
the order passed by the Hon'ble Court as well as the
representation dated 23.01.2024 preferred by the
applicant Smt. Meena Devi.
In this regard, it is noted that previously,
the applicant (Smt. Mina Devi) had informed to the
administration that her husband (Sri Mishri Mahto)
had been missing since 1994 and deceased. After
that she demanded for a settlement benefits also in
her favour. However, after an investigation done by
the Welfare Inspector/Sonpur, it was found that due
to a dispute between the employee and his wife, the
applicant (wife of Shri Mishri Mahto) had filed a
case against her husband at Begusarai Court. Later
on, in this Case Sri Mishri Mahto was sent to jail
also. After release from jail, the employee (Sri
Mishri Mahto) reported for his duty on 31.07.2007.
As, the employee had been unauthorised
absent since 13.05.1994, the railway administration
had removed him from railway service via NIP
number: यां / अनु ./ मेजर /6195 dated 15.09.98.
Later on, it came to notice that his wife
had made a false claim before the Hon'ble
CAT/Patna for getting settlement benefits. The
Hon'ble CAT/Patna disposed of OA No.
050/00870/2023, without entering the merit of the
case, with direction to respondent no. 03, i.e.
DRM/Sonpur to pass a reasoned speaking orders
within 90 days.
In the mean time, the ex-employee
submitted his representation to the office of the
Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel)/Sonpur on
30.05.2024, and claimed for the settlements benefits
in his favour.
Thereafter, railway authority verified all
the available documents as well as representation of
Mishri Mahto (Ex employee) and finally came to the

Patna High Court CWJC No.16683 of 2026 dt.05-11-2026
8/9
conclusion that since the employee is alive, no
question arise to pay any settlements dues to his
wife i.e. Smt. Mina Devi.
Hence, the claims of Smt. Mina Devi (Wife
of Sri Mishri Mahto) stands rejected and the order
dated 19.12.23 passed by the Hon'ble tribunal
complied with.
Thus, the Hon'ble Court's order has been
complied with.”
13. Having gone through the findings of the employer
contained in Annexure- P/5, when we examined the pleadings
available in the Original Application, we find that there is no
challenge to the specific assertions of the employer in its
speaking order (Annexure-P/5). In fact, this Court finds that the
applicant-petitioner has suppressed the fact that she had filed a
case against her husband at Begusarai Court, in connection with
which he was sent to jail. The applicant-petitioner, who claimed
that her husband had gone missing since 1994, had not moved
before any competent court for getting a declaration of death
after the lapse of seven years, as required in law.
14. Contrary to all these claims of the applicant-
petitioner, the employer has come on record saying that the
husband of the applicant-petitioner is alive and he had filed a
representation before the office of the Divisional Railway
Manager (Personnel), Sonepur, on 30.05.2024.
15. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that
this is a frivolous and fictitious kind of litigation which is fit to

Patna High Court CWJC No.16683 of 2026 dt.05-11-2026
9/9
be dismissed with costs. However, keeping in view that the
applicant-petitioner may have been misled into filing the
litigation at some level, we are refraining from imposing costs
on the petitioner.
16. This writ application is dismissed.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
( Ranjan Kumar Jha, J)
rashmi/veena-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date
Transmission Date