SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 14697

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Smt Manju Mishra – Appellant
Versus
General Manager N C Rly – Respondent
O.A./1471/2014



Reserved on 03.11.2025 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD Allahabad this the 15th day of December,2025 Original Application No.1471 of 2014 Present:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)

Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member- (Administrative)

Smt. Manju Mishra, W/o of Late Vijay Narayan Mishra, Aged about 48 years, R/o Village-Mahuari, P.O.-Naini, Tehsil-Karchhana, District-Allahabad.

………….Applicant By Advocate: Shri Ravi Sharma Versus

1. Union of India through the General Manager, North Central Railway, Headquarters Office, Subedarganj, Allahabad.

2. The General Manager, North Central Railway, Headquarters Office, Subedarganj, Allahabad.

3. The Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway, DRM, Office, Nawab Usuf Road, Allahabad.

4. The Divisional Mechanical Engineer, North Central Railway, DRM, Office, Allahabad.

. . . . . . . . . . Respondents By Advocate: Smt. Rachna Dubey

ORDER

Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member-(A)

Heard Shri Ravi Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Smt.

Rachna Dubey, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. By way of this original application the applicant has sought the following reliefs:-

“(i) That the Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the Divisional Mechanical Engineer, NCR, Allahabad, the appellate authority for annulment of the punishment order dated 16.9.1994 passed by the Assistant Mechanical Engineer, N. Railway, Allahabad removing Late Vijay Narayan Mishra, husband of the applicant from Railway Service as a result of ex parte disciplinary proceedings during his missing period in terms of Railway Board order dated 22.8.1981 with all consequential benefits to the applicant as provided in Railway Board orders.

8.2. That the Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the Divisional Railway Manager, NCR, Allahabad, Respondent No. 3 to allow Family Pension to the applicant w.e.f. 31.5.2007, the date of death of husband of the applicant (Late Vijay Narayan Mishra) during his missing period with payment of arrear thereof up to the date of payment of Family Pension is started.

8.3. That the Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the General Manager, North Central Railway, Allahabad, Respondent No. 2 to consider the case of appointment on compassionate ground of son of the applicant, Arjun Prasad Mishra, as per Railway Board order.

8.4 That the Tribunal may graciously be pleased to allow heavy cost in favour of the applicant.

8.5 That the Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass any other order or direction as may deem just fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case."

3. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the applicant in original application are that the applicant is the widow of Late Vijay Narayan Mishra, who worked as Khalasi in the Loco Shed, Allahabad. Her husband went missing in 1994 from his workplace as well as from home. Despite her efforts, she could not find him and he did not return to her village.

3.1 In 2009, she received a letter from Panda Samaj, Vindhyachal, informing her that her missing husband had been living there for many years and had died on 31.05.2007. He was cremated according to tradition. She also received an official death certificate confirming his death.

3.2 When she sought information from the Railways, she was told that her husband had been removed from service on 16.09.1994 for “unauthorized absence” through an ex-parte disciplinary proceeding held while he was missing. She was also told that compassionate appointment cannot be given because he had been removed from service.

3.3 The applicant repeatedly requested copies of her husband's service records and disciplinary proceedings. The Railway authorities informed her that the records were not available because they are not kept after a few years. She was also told no details of the disciplinary action could be supplied.

3.4 The applicant has made several representations requesting cancellation of the removal order dated 16.09.1994,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top