The definition of 'railway servant' includes RPF members, making their service grievances maintainable under the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)

Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 4384 of 2025.

In Diary No. 5784 of 2025 Mahaveer Saran . . . Applicant By Adv: Shri Ram Akbal Upadhyay V E R S U S

1. Union of India and others . . .Respondents By Adv: Shri Anil Kumar O R D E R Heard Shri Ram Akbal Upadhyay learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents on the maintainability of the OA.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant states that applicant was serving in Railway Protection Force. He cannot be treated as armed personnel. Referring to the provision of Section 2 (34) of the Railway Act, 1989 , learned counsel for the applicant further argued that vide amendment Act No. 51 of 2003 personnel of the Railway Protection Force appointed under clasue (c) of sub section (1) of section 2 of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 have also been included in the category of railway servant. To substantiate this provision, learned counsel for the applicant further referred to provision of section 2 sub section (1) of clause (c) of Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 and further argued that section 10 of Railway Protection Force Act 1957 for all purposes every member of RPF have been treated as railway servant. It was next argued that similar issue raised before Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3592 of 2019 ( Commanding Officer, Railway Protection Special Force, Mumbai vs. Bhavneben Dinshbhai Bhabhor ) decided on 26.09.2023 and court has also treated the R.P.F member as railway servant. Thus, learned counsel for the applicant argued that OA is maintainable before this Tribunal as applicant will be deemed to be railway servant for all purposes despite this fact that he has been retired from service.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that similar issue has been raised before this Tribunal and objection to this effect was raised in OA No. 132 of 2025 and on the basis of objection raised by the respondents’ counsel on the request of learned counsel for the applicant the OA was dismissed as withdrawn. He also argued that members of Railway Protection Force are not covered in the category of railway servant, thus, service condition in regard to the members of the Railway Protection Force are not amenable before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

4. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

5. Before discussing the submissions raised across the bar, it will be useful to quote the provision of Section 2 (34) of the Railway Act, 1989 :-

“34) railway servant" means any person employed by the Central Government or by a railway administration in connection with the service of a railway [including member of the Railway Protection Force appointed under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 (23 of 1957)”

Section 10 of Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 is also reproduced below:-

“10. Officers and members of the Force to be deemed to be railway servants:-[Director-General and every member of the Force] shall for all purposes be regarded as railway servants within the meaning of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 (9 of 1890), other than Chapter VI-A thereof, and shall be entitled to exercise the powers conferred on railway servants by or under that Act”.

6. Before discussing the submissions raised across the bar, it will also be useful to quote the relevant portion of Commanding Officer, Railway Protection Special Force, Mumbai (supra) case:-

“58. In the light of the above decision, it would be useful to explore the purpose of the amendment brought by the Adaptation Order of 1950 (supra) with reference to Article 372(2) of the Constitution of India. Indisputably, the 1923 Ac