Dismissed¶47

Union of India v. Smt. Anthony Mary

Karnataka HC4 Mar 2026WP/12488/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NC: 2026:KHC:13132-DB; WP No. 12488 of 2023 (S-CAT), HC-Karnataka, decided 04.03.2026 (S.G. Pandit & K.V. Aravind JJ., per Aravind J.). Keywords: writ petition against CAT Bangalore order; O.A. No.170/00550/2019; South Western Railway; Union of India; privilege pass; free pass; widow pass; medical card; adopted son; family-member declaration from 2010; employee died in harness 14.12.2015; original adoption deed not in records; Articles 226 and 227; writ petition dismissed. Relevant to railway welfare-facility disputes on continuation of pass and medical-card benefits to a declared family member/adopted child after the employee's death.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioners; the writ petition was dismissed, leaving undisturbed the Tribunal's direction to include the name of Sri R. Rahul in the widow pass and medical card.

Union of India Vs Smt. Anthony Mary — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the petitioners; the writ petition was dismissed, leaving undisturbed the Tribunal's direction to include the name of Sri R. Rahul in the widow pass and medical card.

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether the name of Sri R. Rahul, stated to be the adopted son of the deceased employee, could be excluded from the widow pass and medical card on the ground that the original adoption deed was not available in the records, notwithstanding that the employee had declared him as a family member from 2010 and privilege pass facilities had been extended on that basis until the employee's death; and whether the Tribunal erred in directing inclusion without considering that aspect.

¶35

Court's answer

Considering the pleadings, the reasons assigned by the Tribunal, and the fact that Sri R. Rahul was accepted as a family member of the deceased employee as far back as 2010 (free pass/Privilege Pass having been extended on the strength of the employee's 2010 declaration till his death, with no justifiable reasons or grounds shown to deny the same after his death), no reason can be found to deny him the same benefits after the death of the ex-employee.

¶44

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition filed by the Union of India and the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, South Western Railway, has no merit and is dismissed.

¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru (DB: S.G. Pandit and K.V. Aravind JJ.; oral order per K.V. Aravind J.), 04.03.2026 — Writ Petition No. 12488 of 2023 (S-CAT) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by the Union of India (General Manager, South Western Railway, Hubli) and the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, SWR, Bangalore, impugning the CAT Bangalore order dated 13.01.2023 in O.A. No.170/00550/2019 directing inclusion of Sri R. Rahul — stated to be the adopted son of late Sri J. Ramesh, Technician, SWR, who died in harness on 14.12.2015 — in the widow pass and medical card of the respondent-widow Smt. Anthony Mary. The railways resisted on the ground that the original adoption deed was not available in the records. The Court held that since the deceased employee had, way back in 2010, included R. Rahul's name in his family-member declaration and free pass (Privilege Pass) facilities were extended to him as a family member from 2010 till the employee's death, and no justifiable reasons or grounds were shown to deny the same after his death, no reason could be found to deny the benefits after the ex-employee's death. Writ petition dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:13132-DB WP No. 12488 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶10

WRIT PETITION No. 12488 OF 2023 (S-CAT)

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, HUBLI - 560003.

¶13

THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, BANGALORE - 560023.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

(BY SMT. ANUPAMA HEGDE, CGC)

¶17

AND:

¶18

SMT. ANTHONY MARY, W/O LATE J RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, No.22, 1^ST CROSS, MUNESHWAR BLOCK, P.G.HALLI, BENGALURU - 560003.

¶19

…RESPONDENT

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13.01.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED MEMBERS OF THE CAT BANGALORE IN ORIGINAL A.No-170/00550/2019 (VIDE ANNEXURE-A).

¶21

¶22

NC: 2026:KHC:13132-DB WP No. 12488 of 2023

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and

¶26

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND)

¶29

Heard Smt. Anupama Hegde, learned CGC for the petitioners.

¶30

This petition is filed by the Union of India, represented by the General Manager, South Western Railway, impugning the order dated 13.01.2023 passed in Original Application No.170/00550/2019 by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, “the Tribunal”).

¶31

The respondent is the wife of Sri J. Ramesh, who was working as a Technician in the office of the Senior Section Engineer (Train Lighting), Electrical Department of South Western Railway, Bangalore. He died in harness on 14.12.2015, leaving behind the respondent, a daughter Sonia, and a son Sri R. Rahul. It is stated that Sri R. Rahul is the adopted son of the respondent and the deceased Sri J. Ramesh. Sri J. Ramesh,

¶32

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:13132-DB WP No. 12488 of 2023

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

while in service, had declared the details of his family members, including Sri R. Rahul, for the purpose of availing free pass (Privilege Pass), which is extended to family members. Sri J. Ramesh died on 14.12.2015, whereas the name of Sri R. Rahul had been included in the list of family members from the year 2010 onwards. The Tribunal, considering the above facts, directed inclusion of the name of Sri R. Rahul in the widow pass and medical card.

¶35

Smt. Anupama Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that Sri R. Rahul is the adopted son of the ex-employee Sri J. Ramesh. It is submitted that after the death of the employee, when the papers were processed, it was found that the name of Sri R. Rahul was not included in the widow pass to avail medical facilities and railway pass on the ground that the original copy of the adoption deed was not available in the records. It is further submitted that unless it is established that Sri R. Rahul is the adopted son of the ex-employee, his name cannot be included in the widow pass and medical card. It is contended that the Tribunal, without considering the above

¶36

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:13132-DB WP No. 12488 of 2023

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

aspects, has committed an error in directing inclusion of the name of Sri R. Rahul in the widow pass and medical card.

¶39

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is evident from the record that Sri J. Ramesh, while in service, way back in 2010, had included the name of Sri R. Rahul as his son in the records and he was extended the facility of free pass as a family member. It appears that the position that Sri R. Rahul is the adopted son had been accepted from 2010 onwards by issuance of the Privilege Pass. After the death of the ex-employee on 14.12.2015, the entitlement of Sri R. Rahul to the benefits of privilege pass and medical card facilities came to be disputed. The Tribunal, noticing that on the basis of the declaration made by the ex-employee in 2010 the facilities were extended till the date of his death and that no justifiable reasons or grounds were shown to deny the same after his death, directed inclusion of the name of Sri R. Rahul in the widow pass and medical card.

¶40

Considering the pleadings and the reasons assigned by the Tribunal, and also the fact that Sri R. Rahul was accepted as a family member of the deceased employee-Sri J.

¶41

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:13132-DB WP No. 12488 of 2023

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Ramesh as far back as in 2010, no reason can be found to deny

¶45

the same after the death of the ex-employee.

¶46