S Aisha Begum vs SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY
- Court
- Central Administrative Tribunal
OA/872/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH: HYDERABAD
OA/021/872/2024
rd
Reserved on: 23 day of September, 2026
th
Pronounced on: 13 October, 2026
CORAM:
Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Judicial Member
Hon’ble Mr. Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi, Administrative Member
S. Aisha Begum, W/o. Shaik Rahiman,
aged about 72 Years,
Resident of H.No.17-825, Tilak Nagar,
Guntakal - 515801.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. K Venkateswara Rao)
Vs
1. Union of India, represented by the General Manager,
South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad.
2. The Chief Personnel Officer, S.C. Railway,
Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad
3. The Divisional Railway Manager, Guntakal
Division, S.C. Railway, Guntakal.
… Respondents
(By Advocate: Mrs. B Gayatri Varma, Sr. CGSC)
Page 1 of 9
Digitally signed by MINHAJUL HAQUE
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=CAT,
PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana,
STREET="No.5-10-193, 1st Floor, Haca Bhavan Opp Public
Garden Hyderabad 500004 Telangana", Phone=
89021942bba5cdba77c991a42bd3571c5dc23cb3d72e3189d
MINHAJU 6aba2a13fc1028b, SERIALNUMBER=
96d7c8649eefeb7c816929f230ec4df80d1f07c03684484c7f30
17fa336cfe1e, [email protected], CN=
MINHAJUL HAQUE
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Location: Hyderabad
L HAQUE Date: 2026.10.28 17:16:14+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
OA/872/2024
ORDER
(As per Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Judicial Member)
By this O.A., the applicant is seeking the following relief:
“...to call for the records relating relevant to the subject
concerned and be pleased to direct the respondents to release
the pensionary benefits of her husband from the date of
retirement to the date of death of her husband and family
pension from the next date of death of her husband as per the
Orders dated: 16.8.2012 in O.A. No.362/2010 and credit the
same to the applicant's bank account with all consequential
benefits without any further delay and not responding to the
representations dated 4.11.2023 by holding that the delay in
settlement of retiral benefits is illegal, arbitrary, unjust pass
such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may
deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case..”
2. Highlighting the facts of the case, the counsel for the applicant submits that
the applicant is the widow of Mr. Shaik Rahman, who was a Senior Loco Inspector
in Guntakal Division of the South Central Railways, and retired on voluntary basis
on 25.9.2002. Mr. Shaik Rahman, along with others, filed O.A. No. 362 of
2010, seeking grant of 55% of add-on benefit instead of 30%, which was allowed,
vide order, dt. 16.08.2012. The applicant's husband, along with others, filed C.P.
for implementation of the said order. The respondents filed S.L.Ps. to obtain stay
on the order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, in W.P.(C) No. 2937 of 2007, vide
which the order of the Coordinate Bench (Principal Bench) in O.A./1273/2005,
wherein similar issue was under consideration , had been upheld, and, accordingly,
the C.P. filed by the applicants were closed.
3. Subsequently, the Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the Civil Appeal No(s).
3110/2016 , on 22.2.2023, and, therefore, the order of the Coordinate Bench (Principal
Bench) in O.A./1273/2005, wherein the issue involved was similar to O.A./362/2010,
filed by the deceased employee, attained finality. The applicant’s husband could not
re-file the C.P. as he died prior to 22.02.2023. Despite the dismissal of the SLP, the
applicant’s representation, dt.04.11.2023, was not replied to. The applicant is filing
this O.A. for the grant of pension arrears for the period from the date of her
husband’s retirement, i.e., 25.09.2002, to the date of his death, i.e., 12.04.2021, and to
Page 2 of 9
Digitally signed by MINHAJUL HAQUE
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=CAT,
PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana,
STREET="No.5-10-193, 1st Floor, Haca Bhavan Opp Public
Garden Hyderabad 500004 Telangana", Phone=
89021942bba5cdba77c991a42bd3571c5dc23cb3d72e3189d
MINHAJU 6aba2a13fc1028b, SERIALNUMBER=
96d7c8649eefeb7c816929f230ec4df80d1f07c03684484c7f30
17fa336cfe1e, [email protected], CN=
MINHAJUL HAQUE
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Location: Hyderabad
L HAQUE Date: 2026.10.28 17:16:14+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
OA/872/2024
seek revision of the secondary pension from the date of her husband's death, and
credit of the amount thereof.
4. The rejection of the applicant is premised on the Office order, dt. 22.06.2023,
which reads as under:
“South Central Railway is advised that necessary action may be
taken at the earliest to implement the CAT/Hyderabad's orders in-
personam . As the actual implementation as per rules & facts in
each case may take time, the Railways may take necessary steps to
seek suitable extension of time for actual implementation.”
5. The only objection taken by the South Central Railway in implementing the
order of this Tribunal, passed in the earlier round of litigation, is that is to be given
effect in personam . It is to be noted that the Respondents have filed a reply to the
merits of the case, the relevant portion of which is extracted as under:
“2.1 As per para 4.1 and para 5.5 of the letter dt. 25.11.1992, the
following was laid down:
(i) In terms of para 4.1 of the letter, benefit of 30% add-on pay
element has to be extended during pay fixation on promotion/posting
as Loco Inspectors (Stationary Post).
(ii) In terms of para 5.5 of the letter, again for the purpose of
pensionary benefits, the basic pay shall also include, an add-on
element of 30% of basic pay in the case of Loco Inspectors.
2.2 Thus, the Loco Running Supervisors (CLIs) are virtually granted
a cumulative benefit of 69% of add-on pay element in computing
their pensionary benefits, which is much more than 55% pay element
admissible to all the Running Staff. As the Loco Running Supervisors
(CLIs) cease to be running staff from the date of their appointment as
Loco Supervisors, they are not entitled for 55% pay element as
reckoned in case of Running Category for the purpose of pensionary
benefits.
2.3 Going by the contentions of the applicant would lead to the
stationary staff viz. Loco Inspector benefiting to the tune of 101.5%
(consider BP as Rs. 100 and adding pay element of 30% on it = 130;
adding 55% pay element on 130= 201.5%) i.e. 30% at the time of
pay fixation from switching over from running to stationary post and
55% pay element as granted by the Hon'ble Courts.
2.4 Admissibility of additional 101.5% pay element is neither
admissible to any category of the staff on the Railways nor any Rule
provides so.
X X X X X
2.5 An illustration comparing the rule position and as being claimed
by the applicant vis-a-vis Running Staff is given below for better
appreciation. For case of calculation and understanding, a figure of
Rs. 100 has been taken as Basic Pay.
Page 3 of 9
Digitally signed by MINHAJUL HAQUE
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=CAT,
PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana,
STREET="No.5-10-193, 1st Floor, Haca Bhavan Opp Public
Garden Hyderabad 500004 Telangana", Phone=
89021942bba5cdba77c991a42bd3571c5dc23cb3d72e3189d
MINHAJU 6aba2a13fc1028b, SERIALNUMBER=
96d7c8649eefeb7c816929f230ec4df80d1f07c03684484c7f30
17fa336cfe1e, [email protected], CN=
MINHAJUL HAQUE
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Location: Hyderabad
L HAQUE Date: 2026.10.28 17:16:14+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
OA/872/2024
CLI – As per Railway
CLI – As claimed
Board’s extant rule position
Running Staff
Particulars (A)
by the applicant
envisaged in Board’s letter
(D)
(C)
dt. 25.11.1992 (B)
Basic pay (BP) 100 100 100
100(BP would
remain same as
Running staff is
not promoted to
BP + 30% = 100 + 30 =
CLI in this case,
130 Fixation at the time of
BP + 30% = 100 +
he would
promotion to CLI by giving
New BP
30 = 130
continue to
30% add-on pay element as
progress in his
per para 8 (v) (b)
cadre. Thus, no
fixation benefit
(30%) would be
admissible.)
Annual
130 + 3% = 134 130 + 3% = 134 100 + 3% = 103
increment
(3%)
-do- 134 + 3% = 138 134 + 3% = 138 103 + 3% = 106
-do- 138 + 3% = 142 138 + 3% = 142 106 + 3% = 109
Emoluments
for the purpose
109 + 55% =
142 + 30% = 185 142 + 55% = 220
of calculating
169
pension
Pension 50% of 185 = 93 50% of 220 = 110 50% of 169 = 85
6. Counsel for the Respondents further sought to rely upon the decision rendered
in O.A. 656/2023 & Batch , dismissed on 04.04.2025, wherein the Tribunal was
pleased to pass the following order:
“....While equating the two different services of the two
categories, the Tribunal erred in assuming that the employees are
entitled to the benefit by virtue of their earlier service. However,
when some scheme or rules have been framed without
challenging, it should not be automatically made applicable even
though it was extended to the other employees by virtue of court
orders and the said orders are not challenged or attained finality.
The respondent department, by itself cannot operate as a fetter for
the court entertaining such claim on the ground that relief which
is granted was wrong. Especially, when there is every possibility
that such relief may continue to be granted to the other
complainants who may go before the forum which may ultimately
result in a big financial loss to the State and the court will have to
pass orders under the rules. The Hon'ble Supreme Court,
following with the law/rules, policy repeatedly held that the relief
Page 4 of 9
Digitally signed by MINHAJUL HAQUE
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=CAT,
PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana,
STREET="No.5-10-193, 1st Floor, Haca Bhavan Opp Public
Garden Hyderabad 500004 Telangana", Phone=
89021942bba5cdba77c991a42bd3571c5dc23cb3d72e3189d
MINHAJU 6aba2a13fc1028b, SERIALNUMBER=
96d7c8649eefeb7c816929f230ec4df80d1f07c03684484c7f30
17fa336cfe1e, [email protected], CN=
MINHAJUL HAQUE
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Location: Hyderabad
L HAQUE Date: 2026.10.28 17:16:14+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
OA/872/2024
cannot be extended merely on the ground of similarly situated and
each and every matter has to be considered on its own merit.
22. In view of the above discussion and law referred to supra, we
see no merit in the OAs. Accordingly, the all OAs are dismissed
being devoid of merits. No order as to costs.”
7. Much reliance is also placed on the Office communication, dt. 13.11.2017,
which reads as under:
“2. Loco Inspectors are entitled to 30% add-on pay element
for retirement benefits as per paragraph no. 5.5 of Board's letter
no. E(P&A)II/83/RS-10(iv) dt. 25.11.1992 which has not been
amended as yet. It is clarified that the pay element (presently 30%
until further orders) has to be reckoned in the revised pay
structure of Seventh CPC for calculation of pensionary benefits of
Loco Inspectors.
3. In this connection it is noted that many retired Loco
Inspectors, even after getting the benefit of 30% add-on pay
element at the time of pay fixation as Loco Inspectors, have gone
to Courts of Law claiming 55% pay element for pensionary
benefits equating themselves to the running staff. It is reiterated
that Loco Inspectors are not classified as running staff and
therefore are not entitled to 55% pay element for pensionary
benefits.This fact may be conveyed to such Loco Inspectors while
calculating their pensionary benefits.”
8. In rejoinder to the arguments put forth by the counsel by the Respondents,
the counsel for the applicant draws reference to the order, dt. 12.06.2025, in
O.A./596/2024 , and the order, dt. 23.01.2026, in O.A./144/2025 . Vide rejoinder,
the counsel for the applicant has submitted as under:
“21. Here it is necessary to submit that under similar facts and
circumstances, one Smt.Ch.Saroja, W/o. late Ch.Ananda Rao, the
Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench in
O.A.No.021/596 of 2024, dated 12.6.2015, has allowed the said
O.A. in terms of the earlier O.A.No.574 of 2013 (filed by her late
husband),dated 06.11.2013. It is relevant to state here that in the
said Order, the Hon'ble Tribunal in para No.12, categorically
stated as under:
“... 12. Now, the question raised by the respondents
counsel is that the frist applicant in OA.No574/2013 i.e.
ChAnanda Rao, died and he did not file a contempt
case. Therefore, the benefits as instructed in the
Tribunal order dated 06.11.2013 in O.A.no.574/2013
are not disbursed to the applicant in the present O.A.
who happens to be wife of Ch.Ananda Rao, i.e., the
applicant in the said O.A.
13. Since wife is entitled for all the benefits as successor
to employee, this Tribunal order to implement the order
of this Tribunal in O.A.574/2013 in respect of the 1st
Page 5 of 9
Digitally signed by MINHAJUL HAQUE
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=CAT,
PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana,
STREET="No.5-10-193, 1st Floor, Haca Bhavan Opp Public
Garden Hyderabad 500004 Telangana", Phone=
89021942bba5cdba77c991a42bd3571c5dc23cb3d72e3189d
MINHAJU 6aba2a13fc1028b, SERIALNUMBER=
96d7c8649eefeb7c816929f230ec4df80d1f07c03684484c7f30
17fa336cfe1e, [email protected], CN=
MINHAJUL HAQUE
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Location: Hyderabad
L HAQUE Date: 2026.10.28 17:16:14+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
OA/872/2024
applicant therein i.e. late husband applicant herein, as
has been implemented in respect of the applicants 2 and
3 in the said O.A. and extend the benefits to the
applicant, Smt.Ch.Saroja. The order shall be
implemented within four weeks from the date of receipt
of this Order.
14. In the result, the O.A. is allowed, with the above
directions There shall be no order as to costs."
The Orders in the O.A. 574 of 2013 were implemented by the
respondents.”
9. The order of the Hon’ble Apex Court, dt. 29.07.2026, in Curative Petition
(C) No. 200 of 2026 in Review Petition (C) No. 176 of 2026 in SLP (C) No. 27043
of 2025 , dismissing the same is also tendered by the counsel for the applicant.
Responding to the query raised by the Bench, the learned counsel for the
Respondents submits that the order, dt. 12.06.2025, in O.A./596/2024 has been
implemented.
10. Heard the counsels for the parties and perused the records of the case.
11. In the present matter, we have to see whether to apply the decision rendered
in O.A. 656/2023 & Batch , vide order, dt. 04.04.2025, or to apply the decision
rendered in O.A./596/2024 . Needless to mention, admittedly, this Tribunal, in earlier
round of litigation, vide order, dt. 16.08.2012, in O.A./362/2010 , observed as under:
"In the result, this OA. is allowed by directing the respondents to
refix the pay of the applicant by taking into consideration 55% of
add-on element of basic pay instead of 30%. However, we make it
clear that this Order will be subject to the result of SLP.No.
11808/2009 pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court."
It is to be noted that the SLP No. 11808/2009 , was subsequently dismissed as
withdrawn, vide order, dt.29.04.2015.
12. The said order was not challenged by the Respondents before the Hon’ble
High Court, and, therefore, the contention of applying the ratio in the order, dt.
04.04.2025, cannot be accepted. In the present matter, the issue has already been
adjudicated, and has attainted finality. It is also noticed that, while dealing with a
Page 6 of 9
Digitally signed by MINHAJUL HAQUE
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=CAT,
PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana,
STREET="No.5-10-193, 1st Floor, Haca Bhavan Opp Public
Garden Hyderabad 500004 Telangana", Phone=
89021942bba5cdba77c991a42bd3571c5dc23cb3d72e3189d
MINHAJU 6aba2a13fc1028b, SERIALNUMBER=
96d7c8649eefeb7c816929f230ec4df80d1f07c03684484c7f30
17fa336cfe1e, [email protected], CN=
MINHAJUL HAQUE
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Location: Hyderabad
L HAQUE Date: 2026.10.28 17:16:14+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
OA/872/2024
similar matter, the Hon’ble Member (Administrative), who is a part of the present
Bench, passed order, dt. 23.01.2026, in O.A./144/2025 , observing as under:
“13. Since the matter has already been decided in favour of the
late employee, vide the order of this Tribunal in OA/305/2010,
where his name is listed at SI.No.14 and it is not disputed by the
learned counsel for the Respondents, by no stretch of imagination
can the original pensioner or the secondary family pensioner be
deprived of the benefits accruing from the said order. Even the
argument that the said orders were in personam goes in favour of
the deceased employee as well as the family/secondary family
pensioner. Thus, the matter is no longer res integra.
14. The OA is, therefore, allowed. Respondents are directed to
extend all the benefits, as per the judgment of this Tribunal as well
as that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. No order as
to costs. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed.”
Even this order has not been challenged by the Respondents before any higher
judicial fora.
13. It is also noticed that an artificial distinction has been drawn by the
Respondents to buttress their arguments based on a specific order passed by this
Tribunal, though there is a clear distinction between the factual matrix of the present
case and that in O.A. 656/2023 & Batch dismissed, vide order, dt. 04.04.2025,
inasmuch as the applicant was a part of the earlier round of litigation, which came to
be allowed, and, therefore, the contention of extending the benefit in personam
circulated vide the Office Order, dt. 22.06.2023, is not tenable. Further, the
application in personam cannot be accepted in light of the judgment, dt. 17.10.2014,
of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Vs.
C. Lalitha (2006) 2 SCC 747 and State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Arvind Kumar
Srivastava (2015) 1 SCC 347 has held that service jurisprudence, which has
evolved by this Court from time to time, postulates that all persons similarly
situated should be treated similarly; only because one person has approached
the Court that would not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated
differently; justice demands that a person should not be allowed to derive any
Page 7 of 9
Digitally signed by MINHAJUL HAQUE
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=CAT,
PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana,
STREET="No.5-10-193, 1st Floor, Haca Bhavan Opp Public
Garden Hyderabad 500004 Telangana", Phone=
89021942bba5cdba77c991a42bd3571c5dc23cb3d72e3189d
MINHAJU 6aba2a13fc1028b, SERIALNUMBER=
96d7c8649eefeb7c816929f230ec4df80d1f07c03684484c7f30
17fa336cfe1e, [email protected], CN=
MINHAJUL HAQUE
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Location: Hyderabad
L HAQUE Date: 2026.10.28 17:16:14+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
OA/872/2024
undue advantage over other employees; the normal rule is that when a
particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically
situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so
would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more
emphatically, as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to
time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated equally. This
principle is subject to well-recognised exceptions in the form of
delays/laches/acquiescence; persons who did not challenge wrongful action in
their case and woke up after a long delay cannot claim that the benefit of the
judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them,
and delays/laches/acquiescence would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.
The issue pertaining to the grant of 55% has already been adjudicated in respect of
the present applicant in an earlier round of litigation, which is not the case for the
applicants in the batch of D.P.MC Connell & Ors (supra) in as much as the rights
were already recognised in earlier round which are to be passed to the Legal
representatives of deceased employee . Having regard to the same, the impugned
action on part of the Respondents is liable to be quashed and set-aside.
Conclusion
14. Since the matter has already been decided in favour of the late employee, vide
the order of this Tribunal in OA/362/2010 , where his name is listed at Sl. No.6, and it
is not disputed by the learned counsel for the Respondents, by no stretch of
imagination can the original pensioner or the secondary family pensioner be deprived
of the benefits accruing from the said order. Even the argument that the said orders
were in personam goes in favour of the deceased employee as well as the
family/secondary family pensioner. Thus, the matter is no longer res integra.
Page 8 of 9
Digitally signed by MINHAJUL HAQUE
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=CAT,
PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana,
STREET="No.5-10-193, 1st Floor, Haca Bhavan Opp Public
Garden Hyderabad 500004 Telangana", Phone=
89021942bba5cdba77c991a42bd3571c5dc23cb3d72e3189d
MINHAJU 6aba2a13fc1028b, SERIALNUMBER=
96d7c8649eefeb7c816929f230ec4df80d1f07c03684484c7f30
17fa336cfe1e, [email protected], CN=
MINHAJUL HAQUE
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Location: Hyderabad
L HAQUE Date: 2026.10.28 17:16:14+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
OA/872/2024
15. The OA is, therefore, allowed. Respondents are directed to extend all the
benefits, as per the judgment of this Tribunal as well as that of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
No order as to costs. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed.
(VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI) (MANISH GARG)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
/mh /
Page 9 of 9
Digitally signed by MINHAJUL HAQUE
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=CAT,
PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana,
STREET="No.5-10-193, 1st Floor, Haca Bhavan Opp Public
Garden Hyderabad 500004 Telangana", Phone=
89021942bba5cdba77c991a42bd3571c5dc23cb3d72e3189d
MINHAJU 6aba2a13fc1028b, SERIALNUMBER=
96d7c8649eefeb7c816929f230ec4df80d1f07c03684484c7f30
17fa336cfe1e, [email protected], CN=
MINHAJUL HAQUE
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Location: Hyderabad
L HAQUE Date: 2026.10.28 17:16:14+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0