Railway Employee With Valid Privilege Pass Is 'Bonafide Passenger' Despite Missing Journey Entries: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that mere non-endorsement of travel particulars on a valid privilege pass held by a railway employee does not, by itself, disentitle the employee from being treated as a bona fide passenger under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989.
The Court observed that where the pass was valid on the date of travel and there was no evidence of misuse or excess travel beyond entitlement, denial of bonafide status on technical grounds is unjustified.
However, the Court held that full compensation could not be granted as the deceased employee had failed to fill in the mandatory journey details.
A bench of Justice Jitendra Jain was hearing a First Appeal filed by the widow of a railway employee, challenging the order dated 11 November 2011 of the Railway Claims Tribunal, which dismissed her claim on the ground that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger.
The Tribunal's finding that the incident was an accidental fall, constituting an "untoward incident", was not disputed by the Railways.
The sole controversy was whether the deceased qualified as a bona fide passenger. The deceased held a second-class free/privilege pass under the Railway Servants (Pass) Rules, 1986, which was valid on the date of the accident, though certain journey particulars were not endorsed on the pass.
The Court analysed the Railway Servants (Pass) Rules, 1986 (as amended), noting that a 'pass' authorises free travel and that endorsement by the ticket counter is required only where a reservation is sought. In the absence of any material showing that the deceased was travelling in a reserved compartment, non-endorsement by the counter was held inconsequential.
The Court further held that the employee's failure to complete the journey details on the pass cannot, without more, lead to an inference that the travel was unauthorised, particularly when there was no allegation of exceeding the permitted number of trips or any evidence of misuse.
"… merely because an employee holding a valid pass fails to mention to himself the details referred to in the pass, the same cannot be held to mean that the employee was travelling without a valid pass… the benefit of doubt has to be given to the deceased. There is no reason why a railway employee carrying a valid pass would not give the details of his journey, since in any case, the travel is free", the Court observed.
The Court noted that there is a prescription of fines, penalties, and disciplinary proceedings that may be taken against an employee if the pass is misused; however, the present case does not fall in any of these categories. The Rules do not prescribe the procedure for seeking prior approval on the pass.
While the Court overturned the Tribunal's finding on the passenger's status, it relied on the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision in Pulipaka Varalakshmi & Ors. v. Union of India to limit the quantum of compensation.
The Court reasoned that the deceased "ought to have either got the endorsement done by the appropriate authorities or he himself should have made an endorsement on the details required in the pass."
"This having not been done, in my view and following the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, full compensation cannot be granted," Justice Jain held.
With this, the High Court quashed the Tribunal's order, held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and awarded compensation of ₹3 lakhs with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the accident till payment, subject to the statutory cap.
Directions were issued for bringing the deceased's children on record and for disbursal of compensation to the dependents. The appeal was allowed.
Case Title: Seetabai Pandharinath Temghare v. Union of India [FIRST APPEAL NO.315 OF 2012]