Railway Employee Holding Free Pass Without Journey Details Is Bonafide Passenger: Bombay High Court Grants Compensation

The appeal before the High Court was filed by the original applicant (deceased’s wife) against the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal whereby her application came to be dismissed on the ground that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger.

The Single Bench of Justice Jitendra Jain held, “As per the Tribunal, the deceased should have filled up the date of journey and other details on the pass. However, merely because an employee holding a valid pass fails to mention himself the details referred to in the pass, same cannot be held to mean that the employee was travelling without a valid pass. There could be various reasons as to why an employee did not make an endorsement himself on the relevant pass. However, in the absence of any reason given in the impugned order, 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. There is nothing on record to show that the deceased had exceeded the entitlement of the number of trips as per the pass. Therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn on this count.”

Noting that this was not a case where the pass was misused, and the Rules do not prescribe the procedure for seeking prior approval on the pass, the Bench stated, “In view of above, it cannot be said that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger.”

Advocate Sainand Chaugule represented the appellant, while Advocate T. J. Pandian represented the respondent.

Factual Background

The deceased was an employee of the respondent-railway. While travelling in an Express train, he fell between Khandala and Monkey Hill point and lost his life. The Tribunal gave a finding that it was a case of an accidental fall from a train. The issue before the High Court was whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger.

Reasoning

The Bench referred to the Explanation to Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, which defines “passenger”. This definition includes a railway servant on duty and a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling, by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an ‘untoward incident’. The Bench held that Explanation (i) to section 124 A of the did not apply to the case at hand as the deceased was not on duty at the time of the incident.

The Bench further explained that the deceased, being a railway employee, is governed by the Railway Servants (Pass) Rules, 1986, as amended in the year 1993. “As per the said Rules, a railway servant is entitled to a free pass. There is no definition given of “privilege pass”. However, Section 2 (f) of the 1986 Rules defines “pass” to mean an authority given by the Department of Railways or any railway administration to a person, authorizing him to travel gratiously”, it added.

The Bench noted that the Schedule to the said Rules gives the entitlement of the “privilege pass” based on the category to which an employee belongs. The Bench found that the deceased had a second-class free pass and the incident happened during the time when the pass was valid. “ If an employee wants a reservation, then he has to approach the ticket counter and the officer at the ticket counter will give endorsement of the coach, the train number and the berth which will be reserved for the employee. However, if an employee decides not to travel by a reserved compartment, then such an endorsement may not be necessary. In the instant case, there is nothing on record to show that the deceased was travelling by the reserved compartment. Therefore, non-endorsement on the pass is inconsequential”, the order read.

The Bench was of the view 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 i.e., date of journey, etc. In light of such facts and following the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Pulipaka Varalakshmi & Ors. Versus Union of India (2011), the Bench stated that full compensation could not be granted. The Bench thus held the appellant entitled to Rs 3 lakh.

Thus, quashing the impugned order, the Bench allowed the appeal.

Cause Title: Seetabai Pandharinath Temghare v. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:2672)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocate Sainand Chaugule

Respondent: Advocates T. J. Pandian, Gautam Modanwal

Click here to read/download Order