Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010142462019 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : MFA/217/2019 SMTI. ARATI PAUL CHOUDHURY W/O- LATE PRANESH PAUL, R/O- VILL. NO. 2 NA- BHAKATIA, P.O. RAJGARH, P.S. TINGKHONG, DIST.- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, N.F. RAILWAY, MALIGAON, GUWAHATI-11. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M DUTTA, MR G BOKALIAL Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NF RLY, MR. B SARMA BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 21.05.2026 1. Heard Mr. M. Dutta, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. L. Deka, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, NF Railway, appearing for the respondent. 2. This appeal under Section 23(1) of the Railway Claims Tribunal, 1987, Page No.# 2/3 has been preferred by the appellant, namely, Smt. Arati Paul Choudhury impugning the judgment and order dated 22.05.2019, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, in Claim Application No. O.A.IIu-43/2017 (Old) whereby the claim for compensation filed by the present appellant was rejected. 3. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the appellant that the impugned judgment in the instant case has been delivered by only Member (Technical) of Railway Claims Tribunal sitting singly. However, there is no indication as to whether any authorization for same was granted under Section 4(4) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 in this regard. He also submits that the judgment of Railway Claims Tribunal has to be delivered by a Bench of two members in pursuant to the provisions contained in Section 4(2) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 and only deviation in that regard may be done if authorization under sub-Section (4) of Section 4 is given by the Chairman to any Member to take up the matter sitting singly. He submits that as the instant case no such authorization was there, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and on that ground only it is liable to be remanded back to the Railway Claims Tribunal for deciding the matter afresh after complying with the provisions of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. 4. Mr. B. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, NF Railway also agrees to the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the appellant and submits that the matter may be remanded back. 5. Since, the statute clearly provides for the contingency in which a single member of Railway Claims Tribunal can take up the cases for adjudication, however, since said provision, namely, Section 4 (4) of the Railway Claims Page No.# 3/3 Tribunal Act, 1987 has not been complied with in the instant case, the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground of lack of jurisdiction by a single member of the Railway Claims Tribunal. Same is accordingly done. The impugned order is accordingly set aside. The matter is again remanded back to the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench with a direction to constitute a bench in terms of Section 4 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, and to dispose of the matter again after affording the opportunity of being heard to both the parties. 6. Since, this is a very old pending matter of the year 2017, the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench is directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy this order. 7. Registry shall immediately send back the records of Original Application requisitioned in connection with this appeal along with a copy of this order to the Railway Claims Tribunal for compliance. 8. This appeal is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant