01Facts
The applicant’s husband, a Trackman/Gangman with Northern Railway, completed duty at Gate No. C-39 on 13 March 2025, from 08:00 to 20:00, and allegedly died in a road accident while returning to his headquarters.
p. 2The applicant sought death and terminal benefits, including ex-gratia compensation, and relied on an RTI response stating that the employee’s death was considered “on duty”.
pp. 2–3After the applicant’s representations remained undecided, she filed this application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
p. 2At the hearing, she agreed to have the OA treated as her representation and decided by the competent authority within a fixed period; the respondents did not oppose that course.
pp. 4–502Issues
i.1. Whether the OA should be treated as the applicant’s representation and the competent authority directed to decide it within a specified period.
pp. 4–5ii.2. Whether the Tribunal should determine the applicant’s substantive entitlement to ex-gratia compensation and other death benefits.
pp. 3–503Law Applied
The application was brought under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
p. 2The operative direction required the competent authority to consider the applicant’s contentions “in accordance with rules and law” and issue a reasoned, speaking order.
p. 5Although the applicant relied on Railway Board instructions and judicial decisions concerning death in the course of duty, the Tribunal did not determine their applicability or lay down a substantive rule on entitlement; it expressly left the merits to the competent authority.
pp. 3–5Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 Section 19
04Reasoning
The parties agreed that the OA could be treated as the applicant’s representation and decided by the competent authority.
pp. 4–5In light of that agreement, the Tribunal made no finding on whether the employee’s journey back to headquarters constituted duty or whether the applicant qualified for the claimed benefits.
pp. 4–5Instead, it directed a time-bound decision under the applicable rules and law, supported by reasons.
pp. 4–505Holding
The OA was disposed of at the admission stage, without comment on the merits.
p. 5The competent authority was directed to treat the OA as the applicant’s representation, pass a reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order, and provide the applicant a copy within a further two weeks.
p. 5No order as to costs was made.
p. 5Original Court PDF
MinakshivsNORTHERN RAILWAY
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
![CAT Gives Railways 8 Weeks To Decide Trackman’s Widow’s Claim He Died On Duty In Road Accident While Returning From Shift. Minakshi vs NORTHERN RAILWAY. CAT - ['Chandigarh']. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/cat-gives-railways-8-weeks-to-decide-trackmans-widows-claim-he-died-on-duty-in-road-accide-889a8a8888f348deae511cbeff83eb8d.webp)