Mohan Lal Yadav vs NORTHERN RAILWAY

CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00580/2025 Mohan Lal Yadav Vs U.O.I. & Ors.

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH

Original Application No. 332/00580/2025


st
Dated, this 31 day of August, 2026

HON’BLE MR. PANKAJ KUMAR, MEMBER (A)

Mohan Lal (Yadav), aged about 70 years, Son of Late Shri Jagdeo
Prasad, Resident of- 1/23, Vibhav Khand, Gomti Nagar,
Lucknow.
...Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Praveen Kumar


VERSUS
1. Union of India through the General Manager, Northern Railway,
Baroda House, New Delhi.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Hazratganj,
Lucknow.
3. The Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, Northern Railway,
Hazratganj, Lucknow.

4. The Sr. Divisional Finance Manager, Northern Railway,
Hazratganj, Lucknow.
...Respondents

By Advocate: Smt. Prayagmati Gupta


O R D E R (ORAL)
PER HON’BLE MR. PANKAJ KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
In this case relating to the interest on delayed payment, the
applicant has sought the following reliefs:
a) To quash the impugned order dated 04.06.2025 (contained as
Annexure No.A-1 to this OA) with all consequential benefits.

b) To release the interest on the delayed payment of settlement dues
amount to Rs.229543 @12% per annum from 10.10.2002 i.e. the
date of due till the actual date of payment.
c) To release the payment of OLI amounting to Rs.52000/- (approx)
alongwith interest 12% per annum from 10.10.2002 i.e. the date
of due till the actual date of payment and also release payment
of Rs.1900/- shown in the letter issued for Succession Certificate.

Page 1 of 5

CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00580/2025 Mohan Lal Yadav Vs U.O.I. & Ors.

d) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit, just
and proper under the circumstances of the case, may also be
passed.
e) Cost of the present case may also be awarded against the
respondent no. 3 to 5 and cost and interest may be recovered
from their salary.

2. The facts of the case are that the applicant’s uncle, Dhunni
Lal, was working as Gateman under the respondents and he died
on 09.10.2002. The applicant claimed the settlement dues in
respect of Late Dhunni Lal on the basis of a Will dated 18.06.1998.
The respondents asked the applicant to obtain Succession
Certificate. The applicant filed Suit No. 545/2002 which came to
be dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. The applicant filed
another Suit No. 09/2016 which came to be decided in the
applicant favour vide judgment and order dated 24.12.2018
passed by the learned Civil Judge (CD) Raebareli and the
Succession Certificate was also issued on the same date. The
applicant submitted representation dated 25.03.2019 to the
respondents along with the judgment and the Succession
Certificate followed by reminders on 20.05.2019, 04.06.2019 and
03.02.2020. The respondents paid the gratuity, leave encashment
and group insurance amounts to the applicant in November 2020
and provident fund in December 2020. The applicant approached
this Tribunal in OA No. 3 of 2021 for payment of interest
whereupon this Tribunal, vide order dated 13.12.2024, directed
the respondents to decide his representation. The respondents
rejected the applicant’s claim vide order dated 04.06.2025.
Aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.

Page 2 of 5

CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00580/2025 Mohan Lal Yadav Vs U.O.I. & Ors.

3. The applicant’s contention is that he in entitled for
payment of interest as the delay in settling the dues in respect of
Late Dhunni Lal is on their part.
4. Per contra, the respondents state that the applicant had
approached them for payment of Late Dhunni Lal’s settlement
dues on the basis of the Will dated 18.06.1998, but he had not
been nominated by Dhunni Lal in the service records during his
lifetime; moreover, one Radheyshyam also made claim for the
settlement dues claiming to be the son and the sole legal heir of
Dhunni Lal. In view of this position, the applicant was advised by
them to obtain Succession Certificate from competent court of law
by impleading Radheyshyam. The applicant submitted Succession
Certificate vide his representation dated 25.03.2019. It took some
time to process the claim as the case was old and in view of Covid-
19; moreover, as the Succession Certificate was issued in the
name of Mohan Lal but in Bank details and other documents the
name was Mohan Lal Yadav, clarification was asked from the
applicant on 22.10.2020 and after furnishing of the corrected
details and documents payment of provident fund (Rs. 68,366),
gratuity (1,32,848), leave encashment (3,466) and group insurance
(22,963) was made to the applicant. The applicant is not entitled to
family pension of Rs. 1,900 mentioned in the Succession
Certificate as he is not the family member of Late Dhunni Lal.
Further, death insurance of Rs. 52,000 is also not payable as it is
not mentioned in the Succession Certificate.
5. Heard both the parties.

Page 3 of 5

CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00580/2025 Mohan Lal Yadav Vs U.O.I. & Ors.

6.1 It is observed that though the applicant presented his
claim for payment of settlement due of Dhunni Lal after his detah
on 09.10.2002 on the basis of a Will, the respondents cannot be
faulted for advising him to obtain Succession Certificate from
competent court of law in view of the fact that the applicant was
not nominated by Late Dhunni Lal in the service records and there
was a rival claimant (Radheyshyam, son of Dhunni Lal). A perusal
of the judgment and order dated 24.12.2018 in Suit No. 09/2016
reveals that Radheyshyam was duly arrayed as respondent no. 4
therein. However, the delay in obtaining the Succession Certificate
by the applicant cannot be attributed to the respondents.
6.2 The position regarding the delay after submission of
representation dated 25.03.2019 with Succession Certificate by
the applicant is different. The delay from the date of submission of
representation is attributable to the respondents as they took time
to process the applicant’s claim, in my view.
6.3 The claim for family pension has been denied rightly by the
respondents as the claim for family pension is governed by the
extant pension rules and the applicant has not made out a case
how family pension is admissible to him under the extant rules.
6.4 The applicant has also not been able to make out the case
under the relevant rules for payment of the amount of Rs. 52,000.
7.1 In view of the foregoing, this OA is allowed partly and the
respondents are directed to pay interest on the settlement dues
paid to the applicant at the Bank rate applicable from 26.03.2019
till the actual dates of payment within three months of receipt of
certified copy of this order.

Page 4 of 5

CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00580/2025 Mohan Lal Yadav Vs U.O.I. & Ors.

7.2 Associated MAs also stand disposed of.
7.3 Parties shall bear their own costs.


Digitally
signed by
Warij
Yadav
Warij
Yadav

(Pankaj Kumar)
Member (A)

Warij

Page 5 of 5