Railway Employee Travelling On A Valid Free Pass Is A Bona Fide Passenger Despite Non-Endorsement Of Journey Entries: Bombay High Court
Isabella Mariam
The Bombay High Court Single Bench of Justice Jitendra Jain has set aside a Railway Claims Tribunal order that denied compensation to a railway employee’s dependents on the ground that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger. The Court held that non-endorsement of journey particulars on a valid privilege pass held by a railway employee does not, by itself, take away bona fide passenger status under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, where the pass was valid on the date of travel and there is no material suggesting misuse or travel beyond entitlement. Treating such omission as disqualifying was found unjustified.
The appeal arose from a claim filed before the Railway Claims Tribunal seeking compensation for the death of a railway employee who fell from an express train while travelling between Khandala and Monkey Hill. The deceased was an employee of the respondent railway administration and was travelling on a second-class free pass issued under the Railway Servants (Pass) Rules, 1986, as amended in 1993. The Tribunal dismissed the claim on the ground that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, noting that the journey details such as date of travel and outward or inward journey had not been filled in on the pass.
In appeal, the appellant contended that the deceased was holding a valid free pass at the time of the incident and that non-filling of journey particulars did not render the travel unauthorised. It was not disputed that the incident was an accidental fall from a train or that the pass was valid on the date of the incident. The respondent relied on the absence of endorsements on the pass to support the Tribunal’s finding.
The dispute before the Court was confined to determining whether the deceased could be treated as a bona fide passenger under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, read with the Railway Servants (Pass) Rules, 1986, in the absence of endorsements on the free pass.
The Court first recorded that the finding of the Tribunal that the case involved an accidental fall from a train had not been challenged and therefore stood concluded. It then noted that “the only issue which remains to be considered is whether the deceased was a bonafide passenger.”
Referring to the Explanation to Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, the Court observed that “‘passenger’ includes a railway servant on duty and a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling.” Since the deceased was not on duty, the Court stated that “Explanation (i) to Section 124A of the said Act is not applicable.”
The Court examined the Railway Servants (Pass) Rules, 1986, and recorded that “there is no dispute that the deceased had a second class free pass” and that the incident occurred during the period when the pass was valid. With respect to the absence of endorsements, the Court observed that “if an employee decides not to travel by a reserved compartment, then such an endorsement may not be necessary.” It further stated that “there is nothing on record to show that the deceased was travelling by the reserved compartment.”
Rejecting the Tribunal’s reasoning, the Court recorded that “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.” The Court further noted that “there could be various reasons as to why an employee did not make an endorsement himself on the relevant pass” and that “in the absence of any reason given in the impugned order, the benefit of doubt has to be given to the deceased.”
The Court also observed that “there is nothing on record to show that the deceased had exceeded the entitlement of the number of trips as per the pass” and therefore “no adverse inference can be drawn on this count.” Relying on a similar decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the Court stated that “it cannot be said that the deceased was not a bonafide passenger.” However, noting that journey details were not endorsed, the Court recorded that “full compensation cannot be granted.”
The Court directed that “the impugned order dated 11 November, 2011 is quashed and set aside. The appellant is permitted to amend the original application to bring the children of the deceased on record,” and that such amendment “be carried out within two weeks from today in the copy of the original application. Since records and proceedings are available in this Court, amendment to be carried out here itself.”
“The appellant is entitled to Rs. 3 lakhs plus interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of accident till the actual payment subject to a cap of Rs. 8 lakhs. The appellant to give details of the bank accounts of the dependents,” and upon such details being furnished, “the respondent is directed to transfer the amount equally to all the dependents within eight weeks from the date the appellant makes application for the compensation alongwith the copy of the present order.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: Mr. Sainand Chaugule, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. T. J. Pandian, Advocate, with Mr. Gautam Modanwal, Advocate
Case Title: Seetabai Pandharinath Temghare v. Union of India
Neutral Citation: 2026: BHC-AS:2672
Case Number: First Appeal No. 315 of 2012
Bench: Justice Jitendra Jain
