SAROJ Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS first appeal is filed against the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal dated 13.8.2013 whereby the Tribunal on the death of the original claimant has not allowed substitution of the legal heirs by observing that there is delay in filing the application and there is no provision for condonation of delay.

(2.) NOTHING shows more mis -application of mind by the Tribunal than this case because the Tribunal has not even cared to see Rule 26 proviso of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989 and which specifically allows bringing on record the legal heirs on sufficient cause being shown. Though the word condonation of delay is not written in this proviso it is very much implicit in this proviso that it deals with condonation of delay because otherwise there was no need to have a proviso for allowing bringing on record the legal heirs after the period of limitation. I would also like to note that the Tribunal is by virtue of Rule 44 vested with inherent powers to pass orders as may be necessary for the end of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of the Tribunal. In my opinion, if there is no other provision directly preventing passing of an order by the Tribunal, surely Rule 44 can always be invoked by the Tribunal to ensure that justice is done.

(3.) IN view of the above, appeal is allowed. Impugned order of the Tribunal dated 13.8.2013 is set aside. The appellants who are legal heirs of the deceased claimant Sh. Harphool Singh will stand substituted in place of the original deceased claimant Sh. Harphool Singh. Amended memo of parties be filed before the Tribunal on behalf of the appellants within four weeks of the case being listed for the first time before the Tribunal pursuant to the present judgment.