Central Administrative Tribunal
MOHAN RAMAKRISHNA SAKHARKAR vs CENTRAL RAILWAY on 26 October 2026
Central Administrative Tribunal
Mumbai Bench Camp at Nagpur
Original Application No. 112/2025
Date of Decision: 26th October, 2026
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.G. Sewlikar, Member (J)
Shri. Mohan S/o Ramakrishna Sakharkar,
Age-54 years, Occ-NIL,
R/o Sidhaarth Nagar behind Mari Mata Mandir, Station Road Murtizapur, Murtizapur -444107.
… Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. N.R. Kanungo)
Versus
1.
Union of India,
Through General Manager,
Central Railway,
Mumbai-400001.
gm@cr.railnet.gov.in.
2.
Divisional Railway Manager,
Central Railway Bhusawal-425201.
drm@bsl.railnet.gov.in
3.
Senior Divisional Finance Manager,
D.R.M’S Office, Central Railway,
Bhusawal.
spdfm@bel.railnet.gov.in.
4.
Chief Medical Superintendent,
Central Railway, Bhusawal- 425201.
Cms.mod.bsl@gmail.com
… Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. N.P. Lambat)
Munarshi
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
Per: Justice M.G. Sewlikar, Member (J)
The applicant is claiming family pension on account of his disability due to cervical spine injury with myelopathy. The applicant is the son of Ramkrushan Sakharkar. Ramkrushan Sakharkar was Central Railway employee. The said Ramkrushan Sakharkar retired on 30th September, 1985. He got the pension. He expired on 11th November, 2013. After the death of the pensioner, mother of the applicant by the name of Durgabai Ramkrishan Sakharkar died on 21st June, 2019. The applicant claims that he is 50% disabled. Diagnosis is Cervical Spine Injury with Myelopathy and disability is assessed at more than 50%.
2. The applicant after the death of his mother, Durgabai Ramkrishan Sakharkar, filed the application for getting family pension on account of his aforesaid disability. The applicant was referred by the respondents to the Railway Medical Hospital. He was examined by the Railway Board. The Railway Board Circular (Annexure-R-2) shows that the applicant was able to squat and was able to sit cross-legged and, therefore, he was found not a patient
Munarshi having disability of more than 50%. The Medical Board found that the applicant had no disability and was able to earn his livelihood. The appellate authority also confirmed the decision of the Railway Board. The applicant has challenged the denial of family pension to him vide Order dated 17th February, 2023.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was found to be a patient of Cervical Spine Injury with Myelopathy and disability was assessed at 50%. He submits that the applicant was examined by the Medical Board and was found that he was not suffering from any disability and was able to earn his livelihood. He submits that neither the Railway Medical Board nor the Appellate Authority has given the details of the test conducted on the applicant for arriving at the conclusion that the applicant was not suffering from any disability.
4. I made a query to learned counsel for the applicant as to whether applicant tried to seek details from the respondents as to the reason for his rejection of the disability certificate. He submits that the applicant did not make any such application.
Munarshi
5. The applicant relies on the certificate dated 02nd November, 2016. It is of Hospital under the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. This Certificate (Annexure-8) shows that it was issued by Medical Authority, Akola, Maharashtra and the Department is Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India. This Certificate is dated 02nd November, 2016 and the applicant is diagnosed with the case of physical impairment due to cervical spine injury with myelopathy and permanent disability is shown to be 50%. The certificate issued by the Medical Board, Railway Hospital shows that the applicant is in a position to squat, sit cross-legged and, therefore, he is not suffering from disability. The appellate authority has confirmed the decision of the Medical Board. This shows that two authorities have opined that the applicant does not suffer from any disability. It is pertinent to note that the impugned order makes reference to these two certificates. Still, the applicant has not challenged these certificates which shows that the applicant accepts the contents in these two certificates. Once the applicant admits the contents of the
Munarshi certificate that he does not have any disability, the question of granting family pension does not arise.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that these certificates were produced only by way of reply. Therefore, there was no occasion for challenging these certificates. I do not find any justification for accepting this submission. Applicant could have amended the OA which he did not do. In this view of the matter, I find no substance in the OA. OA is, therefore, dismissed along with application for condonation of the delay.
7. Pending MAs, if any, stand disposed of. No costs.
(Justice M.G. Sewlikar)
Member (J)
nk.
Munarshi