Railways Cannot Invoke Limitation Against Pensionary Dues Where Compliance Failure Amounts to Abuse of Process

Ajab Singh, a Gangman for Northern Railways, died in service on January 4, 1988

His widow, Moharshri, filed OA 10/1999 seeking retiral benefits and family pension. On August 2, 2001, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) allowed the application, directing regularization of the deceased from the date of his death and grant of pension

The Railways’ review application was dismissed in November 2001

A subsequent writ petition by the Railways was dismissed for non-prosecution in 2013, and a restoration application was dismissed in 2014 after the Railways failed to pay costs

Despite the order attaining finality, the Railways did not disburse the funds. Moharshri died in 2016

Her legal heirs moved MA 402/2023 for release of arrears, which the CAT allowed

The Railways challenged this in the present writ petition

1. Whether a Miscellaneous Application (MA) for implementation of a 2001 order was barred by the one-year limitation period prescribed for execution petitions under the Administrative Tribunals Act

2. Whether the Tribunal had the inherent power under Rule 24 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules to direct the release of pension benefits despite the lapse of over two decades

Section 27 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which provides for the execution of orders subject to other provisions of the Act and Rules

Rule 24 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, which grants the Tribunal inherent power to make orders necessary to give effect to its previous orders, prevent abuse of process, or secure the ends of justice

The principle from Dr. Hira Lal v. State of Bihar, holding that pension is a constitutional right akin to property under Article 300-A (formerly Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1)) and not a mere bounty

The Court rejected the Railways' argument that the MA was barred by the one-year limitation under Section 27 of the AT Act. It distinguished Section 27 from Section 151 of the CPC, noting that since Section 27 is expressly "subject to the provisions of the Rules," the Tribunal’s power under Rule 24 (Procedure Rules) is not superseded by the limitation period of an execution petition

The Court found that the Railways acted with "abject impunity" and "total apathy" by flouting a 2001 order that attained finality in 2014. It held that Rule 24 was specifically designed for such cases—to ensure earlier orders are complied with and to secure justice

The Court further emphasized that a party who "does no equity" cannot invoke the discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226

The Railways must release family pension (from 1988 to 2016) and arrears to the legal heirs within six weeks, failing which 9% interest per annum would apply. Due to the Railways' gross negligence and the widow's death during the delay, the Court imposed exemplary costs of ₹1,00,000 to be paid to the respondents