Legal heirs must seek fresh approval for contract transfer where no existing contract binds them.

The original petitioner, Ram Sakhi Devi, challenged the order dated 5 July 2017 passed by the Chief Commercial Manager, East Central Railway, rejecting her request concerning transfer of a railway contract. The representation had been submitted pursuant to the High Court’s earlier order dated 7 February 2017 in CWJC No. 17674 of 2013, which directed the Railway authorities to consider her claim in accordance with railway policy.

During the pendency of the writ petition, Ram Sakhi Devi died on 12 January 2018, and her legal heirs, Subash Chand Gupta and Naresh Gupta, were substituted in her place.

The Railways objected that the writ petition was not maintainable because the deceased petitioner’s application had already been rejected and her legal heirs could not automatically step into her shoes.

The legal heirs relied on Clause 25 of the applicable railway policy and claimed entitlement to transfer of the contract.

1. Whether the legal heirs of the deceased petitioner could claim transfer of the railway contract on the basis of the deceased petitioner’s earlier application and Clause 25 of the railway policy.

2. Whether, in the absence of any existing contract between the Railways and the legal heirs, the petitioners were entitled to direct transfer of the contract or were required to submit a fresh application before the competent authority.

The Court applied the principle that contractual rights or benefits cannot be enforced against the Railway authorities by persons with whom no contract exists, unless their entitlement is established under the applicable railway policy.

The Court considered Clause 25 of the Railway policy, relied upon by the petitioners, but did not determine that it automatically vested the legal heirs with a right to transfer of the contract.

The Court also acted within the scope of the earlier direction in CWJC No. 17674 of 2013, under which the Railway authorities were required to consider an appropriate application in accordance with railway policy.

The Court found that there was no contract between the Railway Department and the legal heirs of Ram Sakhi Devi.

Consequently, the heirs could not obtain direct enforcement or transfer of the deceased petitioner’s alleged contractual entitlement merely by continuing the pending writ petition.

At the same time, the Court did not conclusively reject their reliance on Clause 25.

Instead, it preserved their right to raise all available grounds by requiring them to make a fresh application before the competent authority, which was directed to examine the claim in accordance with the applicable policy.

The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh application for transfer of the contract, raising all relevant grounds, within one month from receipt of the judgment.

The respondent-Railways were directed to pass an appropriate order within three months from the date of filing of that application.