WP/11898/2025 of Union of India Vs SHRI.K.R. Kishore Kumar
W.P.No.11898 of 2025
__________
Page1 of 9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.04.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
W.P.No. 11898 of 2025
and
W.M.P.Nos. 13472 & 13474 of 2025
1. Union of India,
Represented by the General Manager
Southern Railway,
Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.
2. The Senior Divisional Operation Manager
Chennai Southern Railway
Chennai – 600 003.
3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Manager
Chennai Southern Railway
Chennai – 600 003. …. Petitioners
Vs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11898 of 2025
__________
Page2 of 9
K.R.Kishore Kumar
Retd.Transportation Inspector
Southern Railway
Chennai Division. .… Respondent
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India,
praying to issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the
order dated 07.11.2023 passed in O.A.No.46 of 2023 on the file of the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.A.R.Sakthivel
For Respondent : Ms.N.R.Jasmine Padma
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by P.VELMURUGAN, J.)
The respondents in O.A.No.46 of 2023, being aggrieved by the order
dated 07.11.2023 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, have filed
the present Writ Petition.
2. The said O.A.No.46 of 2023 was instituted by the respondent herein
seeking to quash the order dated 13.12.2022, whereby his claim for payment of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11898 of 2025
__________
Page3 of 9
Accident Free Service Award [hereinafter referred to as ‘ AFSA’], equivalent to
45 days of his last drawn salary, came to be rejected.
3. The respondent herein was appointed as Trainee Signaler through the
Railway Service Commission in the year 1977 and was subsequently promot ed
to the posts of Assistant Station Master, Assistant Yard Master, Deputy Chief
Yard Master, Station Master and Traffic Inspector. He retire d on 31.05.2014
upon attaining the age of superannuation as Traffic Inspector. It i s the case of
the respondent that he submitted a representation dated 15.12.2021 claiming
AFSA for the service rendered by him in the cadres of Station Maste r, Yard
Master, and Traffic Inspector, contending that all the said posts fall within the
notified safety categories as per Railway Board Guidelines dat ed 06.07.1998,
and therefore, his entire service from 30.11.1978 to 31.05.2014 ought to be
reckoned for the purpose of granting AFSA. However, the third petitioner, by
order dated 13.12.2022 sanctioned only a sum of Rs.173/- towards AFSA,
holding that the respondent had served in the safety category for less than three
years, i.e., from 30.11.1978 to 14.07.1981, and consequently, rejected his claim
for payment of AFSA equivalent to 45 days of last pay drawn. Challenging the
said rejection order dated 13.12.2022, the respondent preferred O.A.No.46 of
2023 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by its order dated 07.11.2023, held that
the issue raised in the application was covered by its earlier order dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11898 of 2025
__________
Page4 of 9
11.04.2023 and, consequently, quashed the impugned order dated 13.12.2022
and directed the petitioners herein to pay AFSA equivalent to 45 da ys of the
respondent’s last drawn salary within three months from the date of receipt of
the order. Aggrieved by the said direction, the petitioners have file d the present
Writ Petition.
4. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners contended that the
respondent had rendered less than three years of qualifying service in the safety
categories involving train passing duties and confined to the period from
30.11.1978 to 14.07.1981, for which he was sanctioned Rs.173/- towards AFSA
for 15 days. It was submitted that service rendered beyond his tenure as
Assistant Station Master cannot be reckoned for the purpose of granting AFSA.
5. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners further contended that the
respondent had not been engaged in train passing duties except for the af oresaid
limited period, and his subsequent service in other posts cannot be take n into
account as qualifying service. The Railway Board, vide Circulars in RB
No.86/Safety-I/24/35 dated 06.07.1998 and RB No.2016/Safety-(DM)/18/1
dated 22.05.2018, has categorically restricted eligibility for AFSA to the staff
such as Loco Pilot/Motor Man, Points Man/Cabin Man/Switch Man, Station
Master/Station Superintendent/Deputy Station Superintendent performing tr ain
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11898 of 2025
__________
Page5 of 9
passing duties, and no other cadre is covered. It is alleged that the Tribunal
erred in holding that the duties of Traffic Inspector fall under the safety
category, without properly appreciating Paragraph 10.1 of RBE No.177/2003
dated 09.10.2003, which merely unified certain cadres without altering any
change in AFSA policy. It was pointed out that none of the subsequent Railw ay
Board Circulars relating to AFSA make any reference to RBE No.177/2003,
and therefore, the cadre restructuring cannot override the settled policy
governing the grant of AFSA. The Tribunal further failed to consider the
Railway Board’s Circular dated 22.11.2022 in No.P(R)436/P/AFS Award/Vol.I,
and that the conclusion of the Tribunal directing payment AFSA for the
respondent’s entire service is contrary to the applicable rules and policy. The
respondent’s eligibility is confined solely to the period during which he served
as Assistant Station Master, which comes under the safety categories.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that,
pursuant to the cadre restructuring effected by the Railway Board, the cadres of
Station Master, Assistant Station Master, Yard Master, and Traffi c Inspector
were merged into a unified cadre of Station Masters/Assistant Station Masters.
It was contended that, by virtue of such merger, the respondent became eligible
for AFSA during his entire tenure. On such premise, the Tribunal had r ightly
held that once the posts have been merged into a single cadre, the r espondent’s
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11898 of 2025
__________
Page6 of 9
claim cannot be rejected, and accordingly, granted relief. Theref ore, the writ
petition is devoid of merits, and is liable to be dismissed.
7. We have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
8. On a perusal of the entire records, it is seen that the responde nt had
rendered service in the safety category only during his tenure as Assistant
Station Master between 1978 and 1981, for which AFSA was duly sanctioned.
The subsequent postings of the respondent as Assistant Yard Master, Station
Master, and Traffic Inspector do not fall within the notified sa fety categories
under the Railway Board’s circulars, including the clarification vide Circular
dated 22.11.2022 issued in P(R)436/P/AFS Award/Vol.I, in which, the Railway
Board, has specifically enumerated the safety categories of st aff eligible for
Accident Free Service Award, which reads as follows :
(B) Safety Categories eligible for Accident Free Service Award
(i) Loco Pilots/Motormen; RB No.86/Safety-I/24/35
dated 06.07.1988
(ii) Pointsmen/Cabinmen/Switchmen
(iii) SMs/Dy.SS/SS performing train
passing duties
RB No.2016/Safety-
(DM)/18 /1 dated
22.05.2018
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11898 of 2025
__________
Page7 of 9
Thus, as per the said Circular, it is clear that only Station Masters and
allied cadres of staff who are engaged in train passing duties f all within the
safety categories. In the present case, the respondent admittedly worked as
Assistant Station Master between 1978 and 1981, for which AFSA was duly
sanctioned at the time of his retirement. Beyond the said period, the posts held
by the respondent do not fall within the safety categories, and no ma terial has
been produced to establish the claim that he had continued to perform duties
falling within the notified safety categories thereafter.
9. In these circumstances, this Court finds that the Railway Board has
rightly restricted the grant of AFSA to the period from 1978 to 1981, during
which the respondent had rendered qualifying service in the safety ca tegory.
Further, the respondent has failed to establish that his subsequent ser vice falls
within the notified safety categories so as to entitle him t o any further benefit.
Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal erred in extending the
benefit of AFSA to the respondent’s entire service, contrary to the applicable
rules and policy and hence, the same is liable to be set aside.
10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 07.11.2023 passed in
O.A.No.46 of 2023 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, is set
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11898 of 2025
__________
Page8 of 9
aside, and the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, connected misc ellaneous
petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(P.V.,J.) (K.G.T.,J.)
02.04.2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
ms
To
The Presiding Officer,
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.11898 of 2025
__________
Page9 of 9
P.VELMURUGAN, J.,
and
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.,
ms
W.P.No. 11898 of 2025
and
W.M.P.Nos. 13472 & 13474 of 2025
02.04.2026
(2/2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis