Page No.# 1/5 vs The General Manager on 5 January, 2026

Author: Devashis Baruah

Bench: Devashis Baruah

                                                                              Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010226012025




                                                                        2026:GAU-AS:72

                            THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                             Case No. : WP(C)/6058/2025

         MOUSUMI BALMIKI
         W/O- LATE RAHUL BALMIKI,
         D/O- SRI NARYAN ROUT,
         R/O- SHIBBARI ROAD, NEAR CUSTOM OFFICE, WARD NO -16 P.S-
         KARIMGANJ, DISTRICT- SRIBHUMI, ASSAM, PIN- 788710

         VERSUS

         THE GENERAL MANAGER
         NORTH EASTERN FRONTIER RAILWAY MALIGAON, SHUTTLE GATE
         ROAD,EAST MALIGAON, GUWAHATI- 11

         2:THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER
          NORTH EASTERN FRONTIER RAILWAY
         LUMDING DIVISION
          DRM OFFICE
          LUMDING PIN- 782447

         3:THE AREA MANAGER
          N.F. RAILWAY
         ARM OFFICE
          BADARPUR
          DIST.- KARIMGANJ
         ASSAM
          PIN - 788806

                                           BEFORE
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

                   For the Petitioner(s)    : None appears.
                   For the Respondent(s)    : Mr. M. R. Adhikari, CGC
                                                                      Page No.# 2/5


                 ·    Date on which Judgment was reserved    : N/A

                 ·    Date of Pronouncement of Judgment     : 05.01.2026

                 ·    Whether the pronouncement is of
                      the Operative Part of the Judgment    : No

                 ·    Whether the full Judgment has been
                      Pronounced                            : Yes


                        JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

None appears on behalf of the Petitioner on call. I have heard Mr. M. R. Adhikari, the learned CGC appearing on behalf of the Respondents.

2. The Petitioner herein has approached this Court by challenging the Speaking Order dated 24.03.2025 passed by the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, N.F. Railway, Lumding and further sought for direction that the application of the Petitioner for compassionate appointment in the Group-D post or any other post be considered.

3. Mr. M. R. Adhikari, the learned CGC appearing on behalf of the Respondents submitted that the instant writ petition is not maintainable. In that regard, he has referred to the Central Administrative Tribunal Rules of Practice, 1993 (for short 'Rules of 1993') and more particularly to Rule 154 read with Appendix VI of the said Rules of 1993. The learned CGC also referred to the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261.

Page No.# 3/5

4. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court now take note of the brief facts which led to the filing of the present writ petition.

5. The case of the Petitioner herein is that the Petitioner is the daughter- in-law of one Kiran Balmiki (since deceased) who died in harness on 27.05.2020. The record reveals that the Petitioner thereupon submitted various representations seeking for pensionary benefits as well as for appointment on compassionate grounds upon the death of her mother-in- law while in service. The said representations having not found any favour, the Petitioner had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench by filing Original Application No.040/00365/2023. The said application filed before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench was disposed of vide an order dated 06.12.2024 whereby there was a direction issued upon the Respondent Authorities herein to consider the last pending representations of the Petitioner submitted in August, 2021 in accordance with law as well as taking into account the observations made therein by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. The said order dated 06.12.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench was served upon the concerned Respondent Authorities.

6. In pursuance thereto, vide an order dated 24.03.2025, the pensionary dues of the Petitioner have already been paid to one Ms. Puja Balmiki, the daughter of Late Kiran Balmiki. However, on the aspect pertaining to compassionate appointment, it was mentioned that no such application has been received in the proper format.

Page No.# 4/5

7. In the backdrop of the above, the question therefore arises as to whether this Court should entertain the challenge to the communication dated 24.03.2025. In this regard, this Court finds it pertinent to take note of Rule 154 of the Rules of 1993 which classifies the cases subject wise/department wise. Further to that, a perusal of Appendix VI reveals that amongst the various department wise classification of cases, cases falling within the ambit of Ministry of Railways fall within the domain of Central Administrative Tribunal. This aspect is also appears to be an admitted position on the part of the Petitioner inasmuch as the Petitioner had initially approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench. In this regard, this Court also finds it pertinent to take note of Paragraph No.93 of the judgment in the case of L. Chandra Kumar (supra) which is reproduced herein under:

"93. Before moving on to other aspects, we may summarise our conclusions on the jurisdictional powers of these Tribunals. The Tribunals are competent to hear matters where the vires of statutory provisions are questioned. However, in discharging this duty, they cannot act as substitutes for the High Courts and the Supreme Court which have, under our constitutional set-up, been specifically entrusted with such an obligation. Their function in this respect is only supplementary and all such decisions of the Tribunals will be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the respective High Courts. The Tribunals will consequently also have the power to test the vires of subordinate legislations and rules. However, this power of the Tribunals will be subject to one important exception. The Tribunals shall not entertain any question regarding the vires of their parent statutes following the settled principle that a Tribunal which is a creature of an Act cannot declare that very Act to be unconstitutional. In such cases alone, the High Court concerned may be approached directly. All other decisions of these Tribunals, rendered in cases Page No.# 5/5

that they are specifically empowered to adjudicate upon by virtue of their parent statutes, will also be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of their respective High Courts. We may add that the Tribunals will, however, continue to act as the only courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted. By this, we mean that it will not be open for litigants to directly approach the High Courts even in cases where they question the vires of statutory legislations (except, as mentioned, where the legislation which creates the particular Tribunal is challenged) by overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal concerned."

8. Taking into account the above observations of the Supreme Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar (supra) as well as the Central Administrative Tribunal Rules of Practice, 1993, it is the opinion of this Court that the challenge to the communication dated 24.03.2025 has to be first maintained before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, if so advised, rather than approaching this Court at the first instance.

9. Considering the above, on the ground of maintainability, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition for which the instant writ petition stands dismissed. However, non-entertaining of the instant writ petition shall not prejudice the Petitioner to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, if so advised.

Bijoy              Digitally signed
                   by Bijoy Saha                                                 JUDGE

Saha               Date: 2026.01.06
                   10:37:17 +05'30'
Comparing Assistant