M PADMA vs SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY on 6 October 2026

ORAL ORDER

(As per Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Judicial Member)

By this O.A., the applicant is seeking the following relief: “...may be pleased to call for the records relating to the legal notice dated 6.3.2024 to all the respondents 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.307/2010 and credit the same to the applicant's bank account with all consequential benefits by holding that the delay in settlement of retiral benefits is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and 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. Jacob John, who was a Senior Loco Inspector in Guntakal Division of the South Central Railways and retired on 30.4.2001. Mr. Jacob John, along with others, filed O.A. No. 307 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 that in O.A./307/2010, filed by the deceased employee, attained finality. The applicant’s husband could not re-file the C.P. as he died soon thereafter. Despite the dismissal of the SLP, the applicant’s various representations, including the one, dt. 14.07.2023, and the legal notice, dt. 06.03.2024, were 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 document

MINHAJU L HAQUE

retirement, i.e., 30.04.2001, to the date of his death, i.e., 22.04.2023, and to 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 the it 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 by way of an additional affidavit, the relevant portion of which is extracted as under: “5. It is submitted that there exists a clear distinction between running staff and static (Stationary) staff, and only those employees directly involved in the movement of trains (locomotive pilots/drivers and guards) are entitled to running allowance. Equating running staff with static staf! for allowances or pay element benefits is inequitable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Reliance was placed on earlier Supreme Court decisions in Union of India &Ors. vs. B. Banerjee (2013) 10 SCC 265 and Union of India &Ors. vs. O.P. Saxena &Ors. (1997) 6 SCC 360. The Hon'ble Court has also observed that implementation of the impugned High Court order would lead to anomalies, as highlighted in the tabulated chart.

Particulars (A) CLI – As per Railway Board’s extant rule position envisaged in Board’s letter dt. 25.11.1992 (B) CLI – As claimed by the applicant (C) Running Staff (D) Basic pay (BP) 100

New BP BP + 30% = 100 + 30 = 130Fixation at the time of promotion to CLI by giving 30% add-on pay element as per para 8 (v) (b) BP + 30% = 100 + 30 = 130 100(BP would remain same as Running staff is not promoted to CLI in this case, he would continue to progress in his cadre. Thus, no fixation benefit (30%) would be admissible.) Annual increment (3%) 130 + 3% = 134 130 + 3% = 134 100 + 3% = 103 -do- 134 + 3% = 138 134 + 3% = 138 103 + 3% = 106 -do- 138 + 3% = 142 138 + 3% = 142 106 + 3% = 109

document

MINHAJU L HAQUE

Particulars (A) CLI – As per Railway Board’s extant rule position envisaged in Board’s letter dt. 25.11.1992 (B) CLI – As claimed by the applicant (C) Running Staff (D) Emoluments for the purpose of calculating pension 142 + 30% = 185 142 + 55% = 220 109 + 55% = 169 Pension 50% of 185 = 93 50% of 220 = 110 50% of 169 = 85

6. It is submitted that as per instructions issued by Railway Board, the post of Chief Loco Inspector (CLI, Level-7, has been classified as a stationary post. Unlike other categories of supervisory posts such as Crew Controller who are drafted on deputation basis from Running staff categories and later go back to their erstwhile duties & posts of Loco Pilots (Mail/Express/Passenger/Goods) such eligible and willing Running Staff who are in Level-6/GP-4200 on being selected as Chief Loco Inspectors (CLI) are promoted & placed in higher pay grade of level-7 GP-4600 on a permanent basis i.e. they do not go back to their erstwhile Running Cadre posts. On being selected and joining as CLIs therefore, the concerned Running Staff, viz., Loco Pilots (Mail/Express), Loco Pilots (Passenger), Loco Pilots (Goods) cease to be "Running Staff" any longer. However, it is observed that despite clear instructions in the matter, some CLIs after already being placed in Level-7 are still claiming benefits of the pay element applicable in Running Staff for pensionary benefits at the time of retirement.”

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 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:

document

MINHAJU L HAQUE

“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: “12(A) 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 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. 12 (B)M.Padma Renuka Devi filed O.A.144 of 2025 for the following relief:

document

MINHAJU L HAQUE

to call for the records relating to the impugned Lr. No. SCR/P- GTL/661/(a) SEP dated 7.10.2024 issued by the Office of the third respondent and set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and against the dictum of law laid down by judicial forums and be pleased to direct the respondents to release the pensionary benefits of her father from the date of his retirement to the date of his death and revise the family pension of her from the next date of death of her father as per the orders dated 11.1.2013 in O.A.No.305 of 2010 and credit the same to the applicant's Bank account with all consequential benefits by holding that the delay in settlement of retiral benefits is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. The said O.A. was allowed as below: "The O.A. is therefore, allowed. Respondents are directed to extend all the benefits, as per the judgement 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 M.As, if any, stand closed.” 12(C) The orders in O.A.656/2023 dated 4.4.2025 filed by Senior Loco Inspector i.e. D.P.M.C. Connell and two others which are quoted by the respondents have no application in my O.A.No.724/2024. My O.A. is quite different and also dissimilar to the O.A.No.656/2023. The facts and circumstances are different relief sought by me is quite different from the relief sought by the applicants in O.A.656/2023.”

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 an document

MINHAJU L HAQUE

earlier round of litigation, vide order, dt. 16.08.2012, in O.A./307/2010, observed as under: "In the result, this O.A. is allowed by directing the respondents to refix the pay of the applicants 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 attained finality. It is also noticed that, while dealing with a similar matter, the Hon’ble Member (Administrative), who is a part of the present Bench, passed an order dated 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 document

MINHAJU L HAQUE

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 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 document

MINHAJU L HAQUE

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/307/2010, where his name is listed at SI.No.27, 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.

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/

O.A. is disposed of on

: 06.10.2026 Order dictated on

: 06.10.2026 Submitted for approval on : 08.10.2026

document

MINHAJU L HAQUE