HAMNUMANTA RAMA SHINDE vs CENTRAL RAILWAY on 3 November 2026

1. Chaya Hanumanta Shinde w/o Hanumanta Shinde, Rtd Pointsman, Bigwan Station, Under Divisional Railway Manager, Solapur Division, Central Railway AND R/at: Ashok Niva, Pusalkar Wasti, Near New JMFC Court, Tal: Daund, Distt; Pune, Maharashtra 413801. Mob:9881280287. ......... Applicant

For the Applicant : Shri Samir Singh (Sarvahita Legal)

-Versus-

1. The Union of India (Through General Manager), Central Railway, G.M. Office, CSMT, Mumbai – 400001.

2. ADRM, Divisional Office, Sholapur Division, Central Railway, Sholapur, Maharashtra, 413001.

3. The Divisional Railway Manager (P), Divisional Office, Central Railway, Sholapur, Maharashtra 413001. .....Respondents

For the Respondents: Shri N K Rajpurohit

by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

O R D E R (ORAL)

Per: Shri Justice M. G. Sewlikar, Member (J):

We have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that deceased applicant by the name of Hanumanta Rama Shinde who was railway employee had suffered accident in 2007 as a result of which his both arms had to be amputated. On account of this accident, the deceased Hanumanta was medically decategorized in the year 2008.

2.1. It is the grievance of the deceased applicant (the application was filed by the applicant but he passed away during the pendency of the application) that he had been regularized since 20th March 1986 but the appellate authority by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

declared him as fresh face on 19th August 1998. The applicant was medically decategorized in the year 2008. The applicant is getting pension. After his passing away, the wife of the applicant is getting the family pension.

2.2. The grievance of the applicant is that he had been wrongly declared as fresh face on 19th August 1998. The applicant has therefore filed this OA for setting aside the order dated 05th June 2023 declaring him as fresh face and for direction to the respondents to treat the deceased applicant to have been appointed on casual basis from 19th September, 1980 and further regularized with effect from 20th March 1986.

3. Along with this application, the applicant has filed application for condonation of delay.

by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

3.1. In this application for condonation of delay, the applicant contends that on declaring him medically decategorized, the deceased applicant sought voluntary retirement. The deceased applicant was totally dependent on his son, as the applicant was completely bed ridden and in a vegetative state. However, to the misfortune of the deceased applicant, his son was arrested on 8th January, 2011 for the offence punishable under Section 302, 307 and 507 of the Indian Penal Code. His son was convicted by the Sessions Court vide order dated 9th April 2013. This conviction was challenged by the applicant’s son before the Hon’ble High Court. Hon’ble High Court acquitted the applicant’s son vide order dated 13th August 2020. The applicant’s son was released in September, 2020.

by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

3.2. When the applicant’s son was acquitted in the year 2020, the world had come to a stand still due to pandemic Covid 19 and therefore the applicant could not prefer the application within the prescribed period of limitation.

4. The respondents filed their reply contending therein that the deceased applicant was removed from service and was again re- appointed in the year 1998. The cause given by the applicant is not all a sufficient cause. He has filed the application after a delay of more than 25 years. They contend that the application deserves to be dismissed.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondents.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was bedridden on account of his by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

medical decategorization and on account of amputation of both his arms. He submits that the applicant’s son was arrested and subsequently convicted by the Sessions Court for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In appeal, he was acquitted by the Hon’ble High Court on 20th August 2020 and was released on September, 2020. He submits that the applicant is seeking pay fixation which is a continuous cause of action and therefore there is no delay.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the main prayer of the applicant is to treat him have been regularized from 20th March 1986. If this happens then only the question of pay fixation will arise. He submits that there is gross delay for which no explanation is forthcoming.

by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

8. We have given serious consideration to the submissions made by learned counsels across the bar.

9. Admittedly the applicant was appointed as fresh face on 19th August 1998. There is no explanation from the applicant as to why he did not challenge this order. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no order to that effect. This submission is incorrect. At Annexure R/2, the respondents have enclosed the service record which shows that the applicant was appointed as fresh face with effect from 19th August 1998. At page 57 similar order is found. Thus, there is record to show that the applicant was appointed as fresh face with effect from 19th August 1998.

by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

10. There is nothing on record to show that as to why the applicant did not challenge this order from 19th August 1998 till the date of his medical decategorization. Even after his decategorization, he did not challenge this order till his son was arrested in 2011. Thus, there is inordinate delay in preferring the application.

11. The question of pay fixation will arise only when the prayer for his appointment with effect from 20th March 1986 is considered. Therefore, this is not a case of pay fixation but essentially a case of antedated appointment i.e. from 20th March 1986 which cannot be a continuous cause of action.

12. In these circumstances, we find no merit in this application, hence application for condonation of delay is dismissed. The OA also stands by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

dismissed. Pending MAs also stand disposed of. No cost.

(Sangam Narain Srivastava) (Justice M. G. Sewlikar) Member (A) Member (J) (sadish) Digitally signed by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR