Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010246962025 2026:GAU-AS:5697 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : MFA/265/2019 ANIMA BHOWMIK AND 4 ORS WIFE OF SUBHASIS CHANDRA BHOWMIK (MOTHER OF THE DECEASED) R/O HOUSE NO. 76 NEAR IMPULSE DIAGNOSTICS NEAR PUSHPA BIHAR LANE MEHARPUR AMBIKAPUR PT.X SILCHAR DISTRICT CACHAR ASSAM PIN 788015 2: APARAJITA BHOWMIK DAUGHTER OF SUBHASIS CHANDRA BHOWMIK (SISTER OF THE DECEASED) R/O HOUSE NO. 76 NEAR IMPULSE DIAGNOSTICS NEAR PUSHPA BIHAR LANE MEHARPUR AMBIKAPUR PT.X SILCHAR DISTRICT CACHAR ASSAM PIN 788015 3: SUPARNA BHOWMIK DAUGHTER OF SUBHASIS CHANDRA BHOWMIK (SISTER OF THE DECEASED) R/O HOUSE NO. 76 NEAR IMPULSE DIAGNOSTICS NEAR PUSHPA BIHAR LANE MEHARPUR Page No.# 2/6 AMBIKAPUR PT.X SILCHAR DISTRICT CACHAR ASSAM PIN 788015 4: ANINDITA BHOWMIK DAUGHTER OF SUBHASIS CHANDRA BHOWMIK (SISTER OF THE DECEASED) R/O HOUSE NO. 76 NEAR IMPULSE DIAGNOSTICS NEAR PUSHPA BIHAR LANE MEHARPUR AMBIKAPUR PT.X SILCHAR DISTRICT CACHAR ASSAM PIN 788015 5: ANAMIKA BHOWMIK DAUGHTER OF SUBHASIS CHANDRA BHOWMIK (SISTER OF THE DECEASED) R/O HOUSE NO. 76 NEAR IMPULSE DIAGNOSTICS NEAR PUSHPA BIHAR LANE MEHARPUR AMBIKAPUR PT.X SILCHAR DISTRICT CACHAR ASSAM PIN 788015 VERSUS UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER N.F. RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI-781011 ------------ Advocate for : MR. S S S RAHMAN Advocate for : SC NF RLY appearing for UNION OF INDIA Page No.# 3/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 24.04.2026 Heard learned counsel Ms. N. Ahmed for the appellants. Also heard learned Railway counsel Mr. B. Sarma for the respondent. 2. This is an appeal u/s 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 filed by the appellants, namely, Anima Bhowmik, Aparajita Bhowmik, Suparna Bhowmik, Anindita Bhowmik and Anamika Bhowmik, who have preferred the appeal against the judgment dated 26.08.2019, passed by the learned Member, Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, in connection with OA II u-/GHY/70/2018, dismissing the application filed by the applicants. 3. It is submitted by the learned Railway Counsel that the impugned judgment and order has been disposed of by a Single Bench, which is contrary to the judgment and order passed by this Court in Union of India-Versus-M/S Shree Mahalaxmi Mills in connection with MFA/90/2013, dated 08.05.2025 as well as the decision dated 18.11.2025 passed in the Union of India-Versus-M/S Bajaj Steel in connection with MFA/113/2016. 4. It is submitted that both the orders of this Court have been passed after relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amulya Chandra Kalita vs. Union of India and Ors. Reported in (1991) 1 SCC 181. 5. In this instant case, it is apparent that this case has been decided by a Page No.# 4/6 Single Bench of the Tribunal. 6. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection. 7. It has been held by this Court in M/S Shree Mahalaxmi Mills (supra) that :- “5. The learned counsel for the respondent fairly submitted that earlier by an order dated 09.07.2015, the Divion Bench of Gujarat High Court in Union of India Through general Manager &Ors vs Satendra RamjorOza&7 Ors, in Special Civil Application No.2602 of 2013,basing on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Amulya Chandra Kalita, wherein it was observed that every bench of the Tribunal must consist of a judicial member and an Administrative Member, has held that the Administrative member alone could not have heard and decide the matter. He further submits that based on the above observation, the learned single Judge of the Gujarat High Court by an order dated 27.08.2018, passed in R/First Appeal No.1528/2018 (Minor Sumit Suresh Sharma Vs. Union of India) observed that, the claim application could not have been decided by a single member (Technical). This order dated 27.08.2018 was challenged before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.213-214 of 2015(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos.15050-15051 of 2009) [Union of India Vs.Minor Sumit Suresh Sharma], and by an order dated 7.01.2025, the Hon’ble Apex Court has dismissed the SLP, thereby upheld the order dated 27.08.2018.in the light of the above decision, the learned counsel for the respondent submit that the matter may be sent back to the learned Tribunal for fresh trial on the matter consist of two members one judicial and one technical. 6. Mr. 6. Mr. D.K. Dey, learned counsel for the appellant conceded with the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent, and in view of the above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, he has no objection if the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication. Page No.# 5/6 7. In light of the above, and as held by the Apex Court in the above case of Union of India vs Minor Sumit Suresh Sharma (Supra), the impugned judgment and order dated 28.12.2012passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati in Claim application No.OA.I/GHY/2004/0135 (Old No.O.A.135/04) is hereby set aside and quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Railway tribunal Guwahati for fresh adjudication of the claim petition on merit.” 8. It has also been held by this Court in M/S Bajaj Steel (supra) that :- “6. Accordingly, taking note of the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, and also the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amulya Chandra Kalita (supra) and the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, dated 08.05.2025, in MFA No. 90/2013, the impugned judgment and order dated 02.09.2016, stands set aside and quashed. 7. The matter stands remanded to the learned Tribunal with a direction to constitute a Bench comprising of one Judicial Member and one Technical Member and to dispose of the same after affording opportunity of being heard to both the parties.” 9. The learned counsel for the appellant has also no objection, if the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to be tried afresh by a Bench constituting a Judicial Member as well as a Technical Member. 10. Without getting into the merits of this case and relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amulya Chandra Kalita vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in (1991) 1 SCC 181, and the decision of this Court in Bajaj Steel (supra), this case is therefore remanded to the Tribunal, Guwahati Bench to be tried by two Members constituting a Bench including a Judicial Member as well as a Technical Member. Page No.# 6/6 11. The original record from the Tribunal is also returned back. 12. In terms of the above observation, this appeal stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant