. Subsequently, the petitioner's husband died on 24.03.2016. In this regard, the arrears arising out of his service Patna High Court CWJC No.9298 of 2024 dt.11-02-2026 2/20 was directed to be paid to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted representation for grant of promotional benefits, payment of arrears of salary and all other benefits. In this regard, the petitioner has filed writ application bearing C.W.J.C. No. 7845 of 2023 and the same was disposed off as not pressed vide order dated 05.12.2023 with liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondents authorities for redressal of her grievances. Counsel further submits that in this regard, the petitioner filed her representation before the authority concerned on 26.12.2023 (annexed as Annexure-P/6), but till date, the respondent authority has not taken any decision on her representation. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for grant of relief i.e. promotional benefits, payment of arrears of salary and all other benefits for which she has filed her representation, as the prayer added in the present writ petition.

3. Learned Senior counsel for Union of India, on the other hand, submits that admittedly, the petitioner is wife of deceased employee who was working in the Railway Protection Force posted in the department of Railway. Counsel relied on the recent judgment dated 16.01.2026 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of Union of India Vs. Kapil Gurjar Patna High Court CWJC No.9298 of 2024 dt.11-02-2026 3/20 in W.P.(C) 1102/2023 & CM APPL. 4349/2023, CM APPL.

10769/2023, CM APPL. 10865/2025, CM APPL. 23257/2025.

Counsel submits that the present writ petition based on the grievances under the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 (Act No. 23 of 1957), wherein, the petitioner claims relief on the ground that her husband was an employee of the RPF, is not maintainable before this Hon'ble Court and is maintainable only before the respective Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal.

4. In the light of the submissions made by the parties and upon perusal of the said judgment rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of Union of India Vs. Kapil Gurjar (supra), it is necessary to quote the relevant paras of analysis and findings which states as follows:-

29. In exercise of the power vested in it under the aforesaid Article, the Parliament enacted the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , with the following preamble:

Administrative Tribunals of disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or of any local or other Patna High Court CWJC No.9298 of 2024 dt.11-02-2026 7/20 authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India or of 1 [any corporation or society owned or controlled by the Government in pursuance of article 323A of the Constitution) and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto."

30. Section 2 of the Act provides that the provisions of the Act shall not apply to certain categories of persons, including 'any member' of the Naval, Military, or Air Forces, or of 'any other Armed Forces of the Union'. We quote the provision as under:

31. To determine the aforesaid exclusion of the provisions of the Act, it is necessary to examine, inter alia, who falls under the category of a 'member' of the 'Armed Forces of the Union'.

32. Section 3 of the RPF Act provides that there shall be constituted and maintained an 'Armed Force of the Union' to be called the Railway Protection Force. Therefore, Patna High Court CWJC No.9298 of 2024 dt.11-02-2026 8/20 the RPF is an Armed Force of the Union, and there is no dispute in this regard.

33. Section 2(1)(c) of the RPF Act defines the expression 'member of the Force' as a person appointed to the Force under the said Act. The provision reads as follows:-

34. Therefore, under the Act, in order to be a 'member of the Force', a person must be appointed to the Force, that is, only upon appointment, a person becomes a 'member of the Force'.

38. The issue before this Court is whether a person can be excluded from the application of the provisions of the Act even before becoming a member of the Force, that is, even prior to appointment.

39. Section 14 of the Act vests jurisdiction in the learned Tribunal. It reads as follows:

Explanation.- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that references to "Union" in this sub-

section shall be construed as including references also to a Union territory.

(2) The Central Government may, by notification, apply with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification the provisions of sub-

section (3) to local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India and to corporations or societies owned or controlled by Government, not being Patna High Court CWJC No.9298 of 2024 dt.11-02-2026 11/20 a local or other authority or corporation or society controlled or owned by a State Government:

Provided that if the Central Government considers it expedient so to do for the purpose of facilitating transition to the scheme as envisaged by this Act, different dates may be so specified under this sub-section in respect of different classes of, or different categories under any class of, local or other authorities or corporations or societies.

(3) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Central Administrative Tribunal shall also exercise, on and from the date with effect from which the provisions of this sub-section apply to any local or other authority or corporation or society, all the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable immediately before that date by all courts (except the Supreme Court) in relation to-

service or post in connection with the affairs of such local or other authority or corporation or society; Patna High Court CWJC No.9298 of 2024 dt.11-02-2026 12/20 and

(b) all service matters concerning a person other than a person referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub- section (1) appointed to any service or post in connection with the affairs of such local or other authority or corporation or society and pertaining to the service of such person in connection with such affairs."

40. Section 14(1)(a) vests jurisdiction in the learned Tribunal in relation to recruitment matters concerning recruitment to any All- India Service, any Civil Service of the Union, or any civil post under the Union, or a post connected with defence or the defence services, provided that, in either case, the post is filled by a civilian. Section 14(1)(b) of the Act vests jurisdiction in the learned Tribunal in relation to all 'service matters' concerning a 'member' of an All India Service or a 'person appointed' to any Civil Service of the Union or any civil post under the Union, or a 'civilian appointed to any defence service or a post connected with defence, and pertaining to the service of such member, person, or civilian in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State, or of any local or other authority within the territory of India, or under the Patna High Court CWJC No.9298 of 2024 dt.11-02-2026 13/20 control of the Government of India, or of any corporation or society owned or controlled by the Government. Section 14(1)(c) of the Act vests jurisdiction in the learned Tribunal in relation to all 'service matters' pertaining to service in connection with the affairs of the Union concerning 'a person appointed to any service or post' referred to in sub-clauses (ii) or (iii) of clause (b) of Section 14 of the Act, being a person whose services have been placed by a State Government, or by any local or other authority, or by any corporation, society, or other body, at the disposal of the Central Government for such appointment.

41. The term 'Service Matters' is defined in Section 2(q) of the Act as under:-

42. A conjoint reading of the provisions of Section 14(1) of the Act shows that disputes relating to any service matters of, inter alia, members of the Armed Forces of the Union, are expressly excluded from the jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has no jurisdiction with respect to dispute relating to seniority, pay fixation, leave, disciplinary proceedings, etc., relating to a member of an Armed Force. However, as Section 2(a) excludes the applicability of the Act to a 'member' of the Armed Force, that is after the appointment of the person to the Armed Force, we now need to determine whether the dispute relating to recruitment to the Armed Force, including the RPF, would also get excluded from the Act.

43. To answer the above, we shall have to determine whether the RPF is a 'Civil Service of the Union'.

44. Rule 4 of the CCS (CCA) Rules provides Patna High Court CWJC No.9298 of 2024 dt.11-02-2026 15/20 for the classification of services, while Rule 5 of the CCS (CCA) states that the Central Civil Services in various groups shall consist of services and grades of services specified in the Schedule thereto. Rule 6 of the CCS (CCA) provides for the classification of posts under the Union, other than those ordinarily held by persons to whom the Rules do not apply. We quote the said Rules as under:

5. Constitution of Central Civil Services The Central Civil Services, Group 'A', Group 'B', Group 'C' and Group 'D', shall consist of the Services and grades of Services specified in the Schedule.

6. Classification of Posts Civil Posts under the Union other Patna High Court CWJC No.9298 of 2024 dt.11-02-2026 16/20 than those ordinarily held by persons to whom these rules do not apply, shall, by a general or special order of the President, be classified as follows:-

This is so even though the RPF is an Armed Force of the Union, as, until such time as the person raising such a dispute becomes a 'member' of the RPF, the learned Tribunal would continue to exercise jurisdiction; RPF being a Civil Service of the Union.

48. Applying the cardinal principles of statutory interpretation, namely that statutory provisions must be read in their natural and grammatical sense and in harmony with one another, we are of the considered opinion that any dispute relating to recruitment to the RPF, raised by a person who is not already a member of the Armed Force or covered by the exclusionary clause in Section 2 of the Act, would fall within the jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal. However, any dispute Patna High Court CWJC No.9298 of 2024 dt.11-02-2026 18/20 relating to a service matter of a member of the RPF would stand excluded from the jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal by virtue of Section 2(a) of the Act.

49. In Mohammed Ansari (supra), the Supreme Court was considering a case where the appellant was a member of the General Reserve Engineer Force (GREF) of the Border Roads Organisation. The Court held that as the GREF is an integral part of the Armed Forces, by virtue of Section 2(a) of the Act, the learned Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to entertain a dispute relating to the service matter of a member of such Armed Force.

50. In Dr. Banipada Saha (supra), the Calcutta High Court was considering the case of a person who was already working with the RPF on deputation. The Court, therefore, held that such a person was deemed to be a member of the Force, thereby excluding the jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal.

51. In Tej Singh (supra), although the Himachal Pradesh High Court rejected the preliminary objection raised by the SSB that jurisdiction even in the matter of recruitment vests with the learned Tribunal, we find that there was no discussion on the said issue. In fact, the Court observed that Patna High Court CWJC No.9298 of 2024 dt.11-02-2026 19/20 the said objection has been raised merely to be rejected outrightly. With due respect, we do not agree with the aforesaid judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court.

52. In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that the learned Tribunal has rightly concluded that it has jurisdiction to entertain a dispute relating to the recruitment process to an Armed Force provided such dispute is not raised by a person who is already a member of the Armed Forces. We answer the question of jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal accordingly.

53. As regards the issue of whether such jurisdiction has been rightly exercised by the learned Tribunal in its Impugned Order dated 11.11.2022, we direct that, subject to orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, the Writ Petition be listed before the appropriate Roster Bench on 29th January, 2026."

5. Upon perusal of the analysis and findings of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the aforesaid judgment particularly the specific provisions of Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 and the relevant provisions of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 (Act No. 13 of 1985) as well as the reliefs for which the petitioner is claiming i.e. demand of grant of Patna High Court CWJC No.9298 of 2024 dt.11-02-2026 20/20 promotional benefits, payment of arrears of salary and all other benefits from the railway by virtue of the service of her husband in the RPF, this Court is of the firm view that the remedy available to the petitioner lies only before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

6. In this view of the matter, the present writ application is hereby disposed off, directing the petitioner to avail the remedy before the respective Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, having jurisdiction to hear the same.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) Divyansh/-