The Bombay High Court has ruled that a railway employee cannot be denied the status of a bona fide passenger merely because journey details were not filled or endorsed on a valid privilege pass.

The Court said that if the pass was valid on the date of travel and there is no proof that it was misused or that the employee travelled beyond what was permitted, then denying compensation on technical grounds is unfair.

However, the Court also noted that since the deceased employee failed to fill in the mandatory journey details, full compensation could not be granted.

Justice Jitendra Jain was hearing an appeal filed by the widow of a railway employee against a 2011 order of the Railway Claims Tribunal, which had rejected her claim on the ground that her husband was not a bona fide passenger. The Railways did not dispute that the incident was an accidental fall from a train and qualified as an “untoward incident.”

The only issue before the High Court was whether the deceased could be treated as a bona fide passenger. At the time of the accident, he was travelling on a second-class free/privilege pass issued under the Railway Servants (Pass) Rules, 1986. Although some journey details were missing on the pass, it was valid on the date of travel.

The Court examined the Railway Servants (Pass) Rules and noted that a pass allows free travel. It clarified that endorsement by the ticket counter is required only when a reservation is taken. Since there was no evidence that the employee was travelling in a reserved compartment, the lack of endorsement was held to be irrelevant.

The Court further observed that simply failing to fill in journey details cannot automatically mean the travel was unauthorised, especially when there was no allegation of excess travel or misuse of the pass. It pointed out that the rules provide for fines or disciplinary action in cases of misuse, but none of those situations applied here. The rules also do not specify any procedure for taking prior approval on the pass.

While setting aside the Tribunal’s finding that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, the High Court relied on a previous Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment to limit the amount of compensation. The Court said the deceased should have either got the journey endorsed by authorities or filled in the required details himself.

Accordingly, the High Court quashed the Tribunal’s order, held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger, and awarded compensation of ₹3 lakh along with 6% interest per annum from the date of the accident until payment, subject to the statutory limit.

The Court also directed that the deceased employee’s children be brought on record and that the compensation be paid to the dependents. The appeal was allowed.

Case Title: Seetabai Pandharinath Temghare v. Union of India
Citation: First Appeal No. 315 of 2012