K Laxmi vs SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY on 7 October 2026

ORAL ORDER

(As per Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Judicial Member)

The instant O.A. has been filed by the applicant, seeking the following relief: “It is humbly prayed that, the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to quash and set-aside the R5 Impugned Rejection orders dated 17.07.2024, and direct the Respondents to sanction compassionate allowance ( Family Pension) under Rule 65 of 1993 Railway service pension Rules and pass such other order/orders as deem fit and proper in the interest of Principles of Natural Justice.”

2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant’s late husband, K.E. Balraj, joined railway service in 1977 as a Khalasi at the Railway Hospital, Lallaguda, and was later working as Office Peon in the office of the 3rd respondent when the CBI laid a trap on him on 27.01.1995 alleging demand and acceptance of a bribe of Rs.200/- from one Shri R.S. Mohan Rao, Fitter Mechanic, for issuance of a Medical Certificate by Dr. D.K. Subramanyam, Sr. Superintendent, Railway Hospital, Lallaguda. The Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, acquitted him in C.C. No. 7 of 1995 by judgment dated 12.04.1996, giving him the benefit of doubt. Despite the acquittal, a departmental charge sheet was issued on 29.11.2001 on the same allegation; the inquiry report was submitted on 20.05.2003 and the Disciplinary Authority (DRM/NED) imposed the penalty of removal from service by memorandum dated 14.05.2004, which the Appellate Authority confirmed by order dated 14.11.2006. The husband had preferred an appeal on 22.06.2005 and died on 26.07.2005 while it was pending; the applicant, by letter dated DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA

Location:

02.08.2005, requested the 4th respondent to clear the pending papers, and the 2nd respondent, by letter dated 07.11.2007, declined to entertain the appeal. O.A. No. 635 of 2008 filed by the applicant was dismissed on 17.06.2010 on the ground that she was not an aggrieved person. The applicant then made representations dated 08.02.2021, 23.08.2021, 06.12.2021, 23.12.2022, and 07.05.2023, seeking settlement dues and compassionate allowance (family pension) under Rule 65 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, as her husband had put in more than 20 years of service and died without receiving any pensionary or settlement dues. The applicant is a poor widow with no source of income. The 5th respondent rejected her claim by the impugned letter dated 17.07.2024 (Annexure A-1), issued on behalf of the DRM/NED. The impugned order reads as under: “Upon thorough examination, it has been determined that Shri K.E.Balraj, ex.Peon/DRM/O/NED was removed from service on grounds of dishonest practices, specifically relating to a bribery case. In accordance with the stipulations outlined in the Railway Board’s letter No.F(E)III/2003/PN1/5 dated 04.11.2008, it is explicitly stated that the award of compassionate allowance should not be considered for railway servants who have been removed from service on grounds of dishonesty. Therefore, based on the aforementioned guidelines and in strict compliance with the Railway Board’s directives, the request for compassionate allowance cannot be granted. This disposes of your representation dated 07.05.2023.”

3. The premise on which this O.A. has been filed is that the respondents have arbitrarily exercised their discretionary power in the matter of grant of compassionate allowance under Rule 65. It is brought to our notice that the DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA

Location:

appellate order dated 14.11.2006 came to be passed on the appeal dated 22.06.2005 of the late Shri K.E. Balraj, Ex-Peon, O/o DRM/O, NED against the penalty of removal from service. It is also noted that in the interregnum, i.e. between the date of filing of the appeal and the date of the appellate order, the said Shri K.E. Balraj expired on 26.07.2005. It has also been brought on record that O.A. No.635/2008 came to be preferred by the applicant, the wife of late Sh. K.E. Balraj, seeking setting aside of impugned order dated 14th November, 2006 of the Appellate Authority rejecting the appeal and impugned order dated 7th November 2007 of Respondent No.2 giving reply to the applicant’s mercy appeal and also for a direction to the official respondents to declare the late husband of the applicant to be deemed to be in service till his death on 26th July 2005 and grant all consequential benefits to the applicant including pensionery benefits. It is noted that the said O.A. came to be dismissed vide order dated 17.06.2010, which reads as under: “9. Thus only such a person can make an application to this Tribunal who is aggrieved: “particularly one whose right has been directly and injuriously affected by action of Court”, any person having an interest recognised by law in the subject matter of the judgment and whose interest is immediate, pecuniary and substantial and not nominal or remote consequence of judgment. The applicant does not meet the aforesaid requirements. Rule 75 - Family Pension Scheme for Railway servants 1964, of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 defines who would be entitled to the benefit of family pension scheme. Rule 92 of the aforesaid rules provides that the Head of Office shall address the widow of a government servant in Form 14 for making a claim in Form 10 for the benefit of the family pension scheme.

10. It would be clear from the aforesaid provisions that the applicant cannot claim family pension as a matter of right. She DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA

Location:

would not be entitled to family pension unless she meets the requirements of the rules. It does not come to her automatically. Her right has not been directly and injuriously affected by the action of the respondents. Her interest in the subject matter is not recognised by law. Moreover her interest is not affected as an immediate consequence of the impugned orders. Accordingly, we hold that the applicant is not an “aggrieved person” for the purpose of Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.”

4. We note that the aforementioned order has not been challenged by the applicant herein. Be that as it may, the aforementioned order had attained finality. It is to be noted that the earlier O.A. related to the claim of family pension under Rule 75 and was dismissed only on the ground that the applicant was not an aggrieved person. In the present matter, the applicant seeks to challenge the arbitrary decision of the respondents based on Rule 65 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, which, as reproduced in the Circular dated 01.12.1995, reads as under: “Para 309 of Manual of Pension Rules, 1950 replaced by Rule 65 of RAILWAY SERVICES (PENSION) RULES, 1993 provides that compassionate allowance is in the nature of benevolent payment. An extract of the said Rule 65 is given below for appreciation of all concerned: “65. Compassionate allowance –

(1) A railway servant who is dismissed or removed from service shall forfeit his pension and gratuity: Provided that the authority competent to dismiss or remove him from service may, if the case is deserving of special consideration, sanction a compassionate allowance not exceeding two-thirds of pension or gratuity or both which would have been admissible to him if he had retired on compensation pension. DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA

Location:

(2) A compassionate allowance sanctioned under the proviso to sub-rule (1) shall not be less than three hundred seventy five rupees per mensem.”

5. Learned counsel drew our attention to the Circular No.145/95 dated 01.12.1995 issued by the Chief Personnel Officer, South Central Railway on sanction of compassionate grant/allowance under Rule 65 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, wherein it is stated, inter alia, as under: “2. Pension Rules also provide that when a dismissed/removed railway servant who has been receiving “Compassionate grant/allowance” dies, his widow or children within the specified age limits are entitled for sanction of “Family Pension”.

3. However, it has been brought to the notice of Headquarters that a good number of removed/dismissed employees who deserve sanction of compassionate allowance could not avail themselves of this benefit due to ignorance of existence of these provisions. It has also been reported that especially families have been put to much hardship when such railway servants expire leaving the families in dire distress.

4. The issue has been examined carefully. It is considered, with accent on the welfare of the ex-railway servants deserving special consideration and their family members, that a system should be evolved which shall take care of the operation of Rule 65 of the current Pension Rules automatically.

5. It is, therefore, decided that from the date of issue of this circular the following procedure shall be adopted in all cases of removal/dismissal of railway servants from service. 5.1 Disciplinary Authority (including Appellate & Revising Authority) while communicating his orders of removal or dismissal to the railway servant, shall also send a letter as DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA

Location:

given in Annexure to the railway servant separately along with the removal or dismissal orders. 5.2 APO/Bills (HQ) or Sr.DPO or the pay drawing authority, as the case may be, on receipt of the representation along with Form No. 8 from the removed/dismissed railway servant, shall have the quantum of Compassionate allowance admissible worked out. A proposal shall thereafter be sent to the Authority which passed orders removing or dismissing the railway servant for consideration of representation and sanction of the compassionate allowance as he may deem it adequate and admissible under Rule 65 of Pension Rules, 1993. If the authority accords sanction, papers may be processed on similar lines of processing pension and sent to associate accounts for authorisation of payment of pension under advice to the railway servant concerned.”

6. Learned counsel for the applicant also drew attention to the Circular dated 04.11.2008, whereby keeping in view the conditions (i) to (v) set out in para 3 thereof namely, availability of D&A and service records, consideration of each case on its merits including extenuating factors, the kind of service rendered, and the dependents of the removed employee, past cases may be reviewed by the Disciplinary Authority on representations of the dismissed/removed employees or the family members of deceased employees. Para 4 of the Circular further provides as under: “4. On review of such cases, if the competent authority sanctions compassionate allowance to a dismissed / removed Railway servant, the same shall be effective from the date of removal/ dismissal. In case the competent authority decides to sanction family pension to the spouse or eligible family member of the deceased Railway servant, compassionate allowance shall be sanctioned notionally from the date of dismissal / DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA

Location:

removal to make the family eligible for family pension and in such cases family pension shall be payable for the period commencing from the date following the date of death of the removed/ dismissed Railway servant.”

It is submitted that the impugned order, which merely invokes the dishonesty clause of the Circular without examining the above conditions, shows non- application of mind.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant also refers to the Order dated 27.03.2024 of this Tribunal in O.A. No.755/2023 - M.B. Rayudu vs. Union of India & Ors., which, in the case of an employee convicted by the CBI Court and dismissed from service, quashed the rejection of compassionate allowance on the ground of dishonesty and directed grant of compassionate allowance against the service rendered prior to the incident, which has been implemented vide Office Order dated 15.10.2024. He argues that the applicant is entitled to grant of compassionate allowance based on the aforesaid Rule 65 from the date of the death of the deceased employee till the date of actual sanctioning by the authorities. He further submits that the stand taken by the respondents is premised on the principle of res judicata, which cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly in the light of the fact that, even though the penalty order under departmental proceedings became final, the order of this Tribunal refusing family pension, which was passed under Rule 75, is ipso facto independent of Rule 65.

8. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the averments contained in the reply affidavit (pages 41 to 47). She brought to our notice that Smt. K. Laxmi, w/o. Late Shri K.E. Balaraj, ex.Peon/DRM/O/NED was informed vide CPO/SC’s letter dated 07.11.2007 DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA

Location:

that Rules do not provide for consideration of appeals/ revision petitions submitted on behalf of Railway servants. Such appeal/ revision petitions are to be submitted by the employees themselves under their own name and signature. As such, no action was taken on the representation. As per Para 21 of Master Circular 66, which states as under, every person preferring an appeal shall do so separately and in his own name. An appeal forwarded through or countersigned by a legal practitioner or an assisting Railway servant or a Railway Trade Union Official shall not be entertained but shall be returned with the direction to submit it under the signature of the appellant only. She further brought to our notice that O.A. No.635/2008 filed by the applicant was dismissed on 17.06.2010 with the observation that the applicant cannot claim family pension as a matter of right. It has been vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that the Tribunal has already dismissed the earlier O.A., the matter is, therefore, covered by Section 11 CPC and that the present O.A. is liable to be dismissed as res judicata. She further submitted that the late employee was removed from service on grounds of dishonesty, the charge of demand and acceptance of bribe having been held proved in the departmental proceedings, which are independent of the criminal case ending in acquittal. She submitted that reliance on the Circular dated 04.11.2008 cannot be read in piecemeal, more particularly clause (iv) of para 3 thereof. She submitted that clause (iv) is also to be considered, which reads as under: “(iv) Award of compassionate allowance should not be considered if the Railway servant had been dishonest, which was a ground for his removal/ dismissal.”

DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA

Location:

9. In rejoinder to the arguments put forth by the counsel for the respondents, the counsel for the applicant drew attention to para 11 of the rejoinder, which reads as under: “11. In cases where pending department action and non- payment of service benefits, if the employee expires, the wife of deceased has every right to make an appeal/ representation to the competent authority for continuation of the appeal or sanction pending.”

He also submitted that the claim under Rule 65 is distinct from the claim under Rule 75 and that Section 11 CPC is, therefore, not attracted. It is noted that the respondents do not dispute the distinction between family pension under Rule 75 and compassionate allowance under Rule 65 as a matter of nomenclature, while contending that it confers no automatic entitlement. The fact of the matter is that the deceased employee had also rendered about 18 years of service before the trap of 27.01.1995, and more than 20 years in all up to his removal on 14.05.2004, which cannot be brushed aside.

10. Heard the counsels for the parties and perused the pleadings on record.

11. In the aforesaid backdrop of the case, it is to be noted whether Rule 75 acts as res judicata vis-à-vis Rule 65, which are the bone of contention on either side. Rule 75 was cited in the earlier round of litigation, O.A. No. 635/2008, in which the applicant was held not to be an aggrieved person and that the claim for compassionate allowance under Rule 65 was neither raised nor decided therein. We have quoted Rule 65 hereinabove, and the rationale imbibed in the Circular dated 01.12.1995 is that Rule 65 should operate automatically for the welfare of the families of removed/dismissed railway servants. We note that DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA

Location:

Rule 65 is akin to Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 for grant of compassionate allowance. It is to be noted that in Mahinder Dutt Sharma vs. Union of India, 2014 (11) SCC 684, the Hon’ble Apex Court laid down as under: “10. Dissatisfied with the order dated 25.4.2005, the appellant again approached the Tribunal by filing Original Application no. 1581 of 2005, seeking annulment of the order dated 25.4.2005, as also, the directions of the authorities, not to release compassionate allowance to the appellant. The appellant’s claim was, however, declined by the Tribunal vide an order dated 28.2.2006. It is necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case, as also, for an effective determination of the claim of the appellant under Rule 41 of the Pension Rules, 1972 to extract hereinbelow, the manner and the reasoning which had weighed with the Tribunal for rejecting the claim of the appellant. Accordingly, the operative part of the relevant consideration at the hands of the Tribunal is being reproduced hereunder:- “7. Reading of the above rules show that in normal circumstances when a Government servant is removed or dismissed from service, he forfeits his past service, including pension and gratuity but it is only by way of an exception that a proviso is added in Rule 41 which states, the competent authority may, if the case is deserving of special consideration, sanction a compassionate allowance. From this, it would further emerge that compassionate allowance can be given only in exceptional circumstances where case is found to be deserving of special consideration. The person, who has to decide, whether it is a deserving case or not, is the competent authority. Under the Government of India’s decisions, poverty is not an essential condition precedent to the grant of a compassionate allowance, but special regard is also occasionally paid to the fact that the officer has a wife and children dependent upon him, though the factor by itself is not, except perhaps in the most exceptional circumstances, sufficient for the grant of a compassionate allowance. In other words, there has to be some DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA

Location:

mitigating factor which makes the competent authority to come to the conclusion that even though the person has to be dismissed or removed from service but looking at the special mitigating circumstances, the person may be given compassionate allowance. It goes without saying when it is an exception, it cannot be given as matter of course in every case where Government servant has been dismissed or removed, otherwise it will defeat the main rule itself which can never be the intention of the legislature. Provisos are added to deal with a particular situation only to avoid undue hardship to a deserving case where mitigating circumstances are existing.

8. With this background, if the facts of this case are examined, as stated by the applicant in his representation, I find only three grounds have been taken by the applicant namely, he had put in 24 years of unblemished service, there were three deaths in the family after he was dismissed and he has become a diabetic patient and is in a pathetic condition. His ground for condoning the delay was not considered by the appellate authority in the right spirit. Let me examine all these three points. When applicant had challenged his dismissal and appellate order before the Tribunal in OA 3132/2002, the question of delay was specifically dealt with by the Tribunal in Para 8 (Page 19 to 22). It was specifically stated as under:- “On this count, we need not prove further in detail. Even if we accept the contention of the applicant to be gospel truth, still he has to explain each day’s delay after the period of limitation expired. As per his own showing, all these unfortunate incidents took place before the year 2000. He was also acquitted by the Court of competent jurisdiction in the same year. Still he did not deem it necessary to file an appeal within the period of limitation from that date.” His contention was thus rejected.

9. In view of above, the contention that there was a valid ground for not filing the appeal within time cannot even be allowed to be DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA

Location:

agitated again as the judgment of Tribunal has not been upset by Hon’ble High Court. Similarly, applicant had also challenged before Tribunal the use of word “incorrigible” for him by the authorities but even that contention was rejected by the Tribunal. The order dated 14.8.2003 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. 3132/2002 was further carried by the applicant to Hon’ble High Court of Delhi by filing Writ Petition no. 10959/2004 but the said order of Tribunal was not interfered with. On the contrary, the order passed by Hon’ble High Court reads as under:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, prays for withdrawal of this petition because petitioner wants to take some appropriate remedy for grant of compassionate allowance. Dismissed with liberty to petitioner to seek appropriate remedy for grant of this allowance.’” which clearly shows that the judgment of Tribunal has attained finality. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the writ petition was withdrawn on directions from the Hon’ble High Court, but I cannot with this contention because words cannot be added in the order passed by Hon’ble High Court. Order has to be read, as it is, which shows that applicant had withdrawn the case because he wanted to take some appropriate remedy for grant of compassionate allowance. In other words, the order passed by the Tribunal was not interfered with and was upheld. Therefore, in these circumstances, applicant cannot be allowed to state to the contrary, therefore, the contention that there was valid reason for not filing the appeal in time or that he had unblemished record is rejected. Since the findings that he was found to be incorrigible in this case when he was dismissed, whereas the foremost requirement for grant of compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules is that of extenuating circumstances.

10. Apart from it, applicant remained unauthorizedly absent on six occasions, as reflected in counter affidavit: “1. 3 days leave without pay w.e.f. 30.9.79 to 2.10.79 vide O.B. no. 656/80. DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA

Location:

2. 66 days leave without pay w.e.f. 15.10.79 to 19.12.79 vide O.B. no. 656/80.

3. 19 days leave without pay w.e.f. 6.2.81 to 24.2.81 vide order no. 15417-21/ASIP/North dated 8.9.1981.

4. 20 days leave without pay w.e.f. 29.8.84 to 17.9.84 vide O.B. no. 682/85.

5. 83 days leave without pay w.e.f. 20.9.84 to 11.12.84 vide O.B. no. 682/85.

6. 110 days leave without pay w.e.f. 3.1.96 to 22.4.96 vide order no. 2934-37/ASIP-II, DAP, dated 22.5.96.” Applicant has not even bothered to controvert it, which means these averments stand admitted in law. These facts clearly show that applicant cannot be said to be having unblemished record as stated by him, therefore, this contention also has to be rejected. Applicant was dismissed in 1996. If after 9 years applicant states he is in a pathetic condition, he cannot be allowed to claim compassionate allowance in 2005 w.e.f. 1996 i.e. date of his dismissal, that too with interest. This request is definitely an after thought, nothing more need be said on this point. If such a contention is allowed, employees will not bother to maintain discipline or follow rules because they would think ultimately even if they are dismissed, they can always claim compassionate allowance. Compassionate allowance cannot be sought as a matter of right unless there are some exceptional circumstances.”

12. In the case decided by a Single Bench of this Tribunal [Member (Judl), who is part to this Bench] in O.A. No.2610/2021 decided on 18.07.2024, it was observed as under: “7. Having heard the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, for the purpose of adjudication of the present case, Rule 65 of Railway Service Pension Rules 1993 has to be looked into. For ready reference, the said rule is as under : “65. Compassionate allowance – DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA

Location:

(1) A railway servant who is dismissed or removed from service shall forfeit his pension and gratuity: Provided that the authority competent to dismiss or remove him from service may, if the case is deserving of special consideration, sanction a compassionate allowance not exceeding two thirds of pension or gratuity or both which would have been admissible to him if he had retired on compensation pension.

(2) A compassionate allowance sanctioned under the proviso to sub-rule

(1) shall not be less than three thousand five hundred rupees per mensem.”

8. As regards grant of compassionate allowance, there are established procedures contained in the Railway Board instructions issued vide RBE 79/2005, which reads as under : “Copy of Board's letter No. F(E)III/2003/PN1/5 dated 9.5.2005(RBE No. 79/2005). Sub: Grant of compassionate allowance. …. References are being received from Zonal Railways, etc., seeking clarification as to whether, compassionate allowance can be sanctioned to the removed/dismissed Railway servants and family pension to the eligible members of the family on the basis of representations received from them and the family after a lapse of many years from the date of removal/dismissal and death, respectively of such removed/dismissed Railway servants. In this respect, attention is invited to Rule 65 of Railway Services (pension) Rules, 1993. In terms of this rule, if the case of a removed/dismissed Railway servant is deserving of special consideration, the authority competent to dismiss or remove the Railway servant from service may sanction a compassionate allowance not exceeding two thirds of pension or gratuity or both, which would have been admissible to him if he had retired on compensation pension. The power to sanction or otherwise compassionate allowance is a discretionary power vested in the authority competent to remove/dismiss the Railway servant, to be exercised by that authority suo-motu, at the time of passing orders of dismissal or removal from service or immediately thereafter. Hence past cases where the competent authority, in exercise of its DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA

Location:

discretionary powers, had not sanctioned compassionate allowance at the time of passing orders of removal/dismissal or immediately thereafter, cannot be reopened for review on the basis of representations received from the removed/dismissed employees and members of their family at a later date.

2. The existing guiding principles and procedures for grant of compassionate allowance or gratuity or both are reiterated hereunder or compliance by the concerned authorities.

i) The decision for grant of compassionate allowance or gratuity or both, or otherwise, shall be taken at the time of passing orders of removal/dismissal keeping in view the guidelines given in para 310 of the Manual of Railway Pension Rules, 1950. [ii] If no mention about the compassionate allowance, etc. is made by the Competent authority while passing orders of removal/dismissal, the Concerned Head of Office shall resubmit the case file along with relevant information/guidelines to the concerned competent authority and obtains decision for or against sanction of compassionate allowance or gratuity or both. [iii] If the decision is for grant of compassionate allowance, etc., necessary action to implement the same shall be taken by the Head of Office based on the decision of the appellate authority on the penalty orders passed by the disciplinary authority. [iv] If no appeal is preferred within the target date, sanction order shall be issued immediately thereafter. 9 OA No. 2610/2021 Item No. 82 (C-4) [v] If the appeal is preferred within the target date and a decision has already been taken for or against sanction of compassionate allowance, etc., and the same is not turned down by the appellate authority, such a decision shall be treated as final and no representation in this respect shall be entertained at a later date. [vi] The decision to grant compassionate allowance, etc., shall be communicated through a separate order. This decision shall not form DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA

Location:

part of the order under which the penalty of removal or dismissal is imposed.

3. Recently, a case has come to the notice of the Board, wherein the competent authority, while imposing the penalty of removal from service on a Railway servant, sanctioned compassionate allowance without verifying the qualifying service rendered by the latter. Compassionate allowance being one of the classes of pensions and a minimum qualifying service of ten years is a prerequisite for sanction of any class of pension, before sanctioning compassionate allowance, it is absolutely necessary for the competent authority intending to sanction compassionate allowance to a person on whom the punishment of removal/dismissal is imposed, to satisfy itself that such a person had rendered not less than 10 years of qualifying service. Board, therefore, desire that the Head of Office should place before the competent authority the information about the qualifying service and other relevant facts concerning the Railway servant either at the time of imposing the penalty of removal/dismissal or immediately thereafter to facilitate that authority to take a decision as regards sanction of compassionate allowance in terms of Rule 65 of Railway Services (Pension) Rules,. 1993 and guidelines given in para 310 of Manual of Railway Pension Rules, 1950. 4. Zonal Railway administration are requested to take note of the position for guidance and compliance.” Clause (2) of the said circular clearly envisages the existing guidelines and procedures for grant of compassionate allowance. The same has been reiterated in the subsequent office memorandum dated 31.05.2022. However, the exceptions have been carved out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahinder Dutt Sharma Vs. Union of India (2014) 11 SCC 684 which had already been highlighted in the earlier round of litigation, Para 10 thereof reads as under : “10. Dissatisfied with the order dated 25.4.2005, the appellant again approached the Tribunal by filing Original Application no. 1581 of 2005, seeking annulment of the order dated 25.4.2005, as also, the directions of the authorities, not to release compassionate allowance to the appellant. The appellant’s claim was, however, declined by the DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA

Location:

Tribunal vide an order dated 28.2.2006. It is necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case, as also, for an effective determination of the claim of the appellant under Rule 41 of the Pension Rules, 1972 to extract hereinbelow, the manner and the reasoning which had weighed with the Tribunal for rejecting the claim of the appellant. Accordingly, the operative part of the relevant consideration at the hands of the Tribunal is being reproduced hereunder:- “7. Reading of the above rules show that in normal circumstances when a Government servant is removed or dismissed from service, he forfeits his past service, including pension and gratuity but it is only by way of an exception that a proviso is added in Rule 41 which states, the competent authority may, if the case is deserving of special consideration, sanction a compassionate allowance. From this, it would further emerge that compassionate allowance can be given only in exceptional circumstances where case is found to be deserving of special consideration. The person, who has to decide, whether it is a deserving case or not, is the competent authority. Under the Government of India’s decisions, poverty is not an essential condition precedent to the grant of a compassionate allowance, but special regard is also occasionally paid to the fact that the officer has a wife and children dependent upon him, though the factor by itself is not, except perhaps in the most exceptional circumstances, sufficient for the grant of a compassionate allowance. In other words, there has to be some mitigating factor which makes the competent authority to come to the conclusion that even though the person has to be dismissed or removed from service but looking at the special mitigating circumstances, the person may be given compassionate allowance. It goes without saying when it is an exception, it cannot be given as matter of course in every case where Government servant has been dismissed or removed, otherwise it will defeat the main rule itself which can never be the intention of the legislature. Provisos are added to deal with a particular situation only to avoid undue hardship to a deserving case where mitigating circumstances are existing.

8. With this background, if the facts of this case are examined, as stated by the applicant in his representation, I find only three grounds DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA

Location:

have been taken by the applicant namely, he had put in 24 years of unblemished service, there were three deaths in the family after he was dismissed and he has become a diabetic patient and is in a pathetic condition. His ground for condoning the delay was not considered by the appellate authority in the right spirit. Let me examine all these three points. When applicant had challenged his dismissal and appellate order before the Tribunal in OA 3132/2002, the question of delay was specifically dealt with by the Tribunal in Para 8 (Page 19 to 22). It was specifically stated as under:- “On this count, we need not prove further in detail. Even if we accept the contention of the applicant to be gospel truth, still he has to explain each day’s delay after the period of limitation expired. As per his own showing, all these unfortunate incidents took place before the year 2000. He was also acquitted by the Court of competent jurisdiction in the same year. Still he did not deem it necessary to file an appeal within the period of limitation from that date.” His contention was thus rejected.

9. In view of above, the contention that there was a valid ground for not filing the appeal within time cannot even be allowed to be agitated again as the judgment of Tribunal has not been upset by Hon’ble High Court. Similarly, applicant had also challenged before Tribunal the use of word “incorrigible” for him by the authorities but even that contention was rejected by the Tribunal. The order dated 14.8.2003 12 OA No. 2610/2021 Item No. 82 (C-4) passed by the Tribunal in O.A. 3132/2002 was further carried by the applicant to Hon’ble High Court of Delhi by filing Writ Petition no. 10959/2004 but the said order of Tribunal was not interfered with. On the contrary, the order passed by Hon’ble High Court reads as under:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, prays for withdrawal of this petition because petitioner wants to take some appropriate remedy for grant of compassionate allowance. Dismissed with liberty to petitioner to seek appropriate remedy for grant of this allowance.” which clearly shows that the judgment of Tribunal has attained finality. Counsel for the applicant submitted DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA

Location:

that the writ petition was withdrawn on directions from the Hon’ble High Court, but I cannot with this contention because words cannot be added in the order passed by Hon’ble High Court. Order has to be read, as it is, which shows that applicant had withdrawn the case because he wanted to take some appropriate remedy for grant of compassionate allowance. In other words, the order passed by the Tribunal was not interfered with and was upheld. Therefore, in these circumstances, applicant cannot be allowed to state to the contrary, therefore, the contention that there was valid reason for not filing the appeal in time or that he had unblemished record is rejected. Since the findings that he was found to be incorrigible in this case when he was dismissed, whereas the foremost requirement for grant of compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules is that of extenuating circumstances.

10. Apart from it, applicant remained unauthorizedly absent on six occasions, as reflected in counter affidavit: “1. 3 days leave without pay w.e.f. 30.9.79 to 2.10.79 vide O.B. no. 656/80. 2. 66 days leave without pay w.e.f. 15.10.79 to 19.12.79 vide O.B. no. 656/80.

3. 19 days leave without pay w.e.f. 6.2.81 to 24.2.81 vide order no. 15417-21/ASIP/North dated 8.9.1981.

4. 20 days leave without pay w.e.f. 29.8.84 to 17.9.84 vide O.B. no. 682/85. 13 OA No. 2610/2021 Item No. 82 (C-4)

5. 83 days leave without pay w.e.f. 20.9.84 to 11.12.84 vide O.B. no. 682/85. 6. 110 days leave without pay w.e.f. 3.1.96 to 22.4.96 vide order no. 2934-37/ASIP-II, DAP, dated 22.5.96.” Applicant has not even bothered to controvert it, which means these averments stand admitted in law. These facts clearly show that applicant cannot be said to be having unblemished record as stated by him, therefore, this contention also has to be rejected. Applicant was dismissed in 1996. If after 9 years applicant states he is in a pathetic condition, he cannot be allowed to claim compassionate allowance in 2005 w.e.f. 1996 i.e. date of his dismissal, that too with interest. This request is definitely an after thought, nothing more DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA

Location:

need be said on this point. If such a contention is allowed, employees will not bother to maintain discipline or follow rules because they would think ultimately even if they are dismissed, they can always claim compassionate allowance. Compassionate allowance cannot be sought as a matter of right unless there are some exceptional circumstances.”

9. The only pre-requisite for grant of compassionate allowance in terms of OM dated 31.05.2022 is that the concerned applicant ought to have minimum qualifying service of 10 years and has not been dishonest at the time of removal and/or dismissal. Admittedly, the employee joined Railways on 22.10.1965 and would have superannuated on 30.11.2004. However, the fact of the matter is that he was removed from service vide the impugned penalty order dated 15.12.2003. No doubt, it is an admitted position that he was penalized seven times during this service period, resulting his removal from service. However, non grant of compassionate allowance to the extent of two thirds pension taking into account his said past misconduct is itself a double jeopardy. The grant of compassionate allowance is governed by the rule position/policy on the subject which ought to have been considered by the respondents independent of the aforesaid penalty orders.

10. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

11. In the case of Mohd. Abdul Samad vs. S.C. Rly. Represented by G.M. reported in 2008 (2) All India Services Law Journal page 102, Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Courthas held that a railway servant dismissed on the ground of very serious charges is also entitled to be considered for grant of compassionate allowance under the rules. Hon'ble High Court has held as under:- “15. While there can be no dispute that the charges held established against the petitioner, of pilferage of railway property and attempt to sell it to a habitual receiver of stolen property, are grave and serious and would deserve no sympathy from this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it cannot be lost sight of that the applicable rules extend the benefit of compassionate allowance even to those who have been dismissed/removed from service, however, subject to the conditions stipulated therein. Under the DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA

Location:

Disciplinary and Appeal Rules, removal and dismissal from service are the harshest of the penalties prescribed and it is only when the charge held established against an employee are grave and serious would such a punishment be imposed. While the submission of Sri Gouri Shankar Sanghi, learned Senior Standing Counsel, that no indulgence should be shown by this Court to such an employee, cannot be said to be without merit, since the railway authorities, in their wisdom, have made rules extending the benefit of grant of compassionate allowance even to those employees, who have been removed/ dismissed from service, it is not for this Court to delve further on this aspect. Under the Rules, while an employee is entitled for compensation pension on his retirement, the maximum limit, up to which compassionate allowance can be granted to an employee who is dismissed or removed from service is restricted to 2/3rd thereof. The rule making authority has considered it appropriate to make an ameliorative provision even in favour of employees who have been dismissed/removed from service. Since this benefit is extended even to those who have been removed from service, as has been rightly observed by the 3rd respondent himself, in the impugned order dated 28- 6-2000, the actual misconduct or the course of misconduct which led to the removal or dismissal from service cannot by itself be a ground for denying the benefit of grant of compassionate allowance to such an employee. Lest it be construed otherwise it is made clear that this would also be one of the factors which may be required to be taken into consideration by the Competent Authority while arriving at his decision in granting/refusing to grant compassionate allowance but this cannot be the only factor. As has been noted by the 3rd respondent himself, the kind of service which the employee 17 OA No. 2610/2021 has rendered would also be a relevant factor. In addition, the fact that the applicant has a wife and children dependent upon him is a factor which Para 310 of the Manual of Pension Rules, 1950 requires the Competent Authority to take into consideration while exercising his discretion as to whether or not the benefit of compassionate allowance is required to be extended to such an employee.”

DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA

Location:

13. In the present case also, we observe that the discretion which is vested for grant of compassionate allowance has to be exercised in the ratio laid down in Mahinder Dutt Sharma (supra), which has not been applied to the facts of the present case. The impugned order merely invokes clause (iv) of the Circular dated 04.11.2008, without considering the other conditions stipulated therein, such as the kind of service rendered by the deceased employee, his acquittal in the criminal case, and the spouse’s dependency.

14. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 17.07.2024 is liable to be quashed and set aside. The Respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders sanctioning compassionate allowance to the extent of two-thirds of the pension to the applicant, taking into account all requisite facts, including the financial condition of the applicant, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, on a notional basis, and actual from the date of passing the order.

15. The O.A. is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending MAs, if any, stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

(VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI) (MANISH GARG) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

/pv/

DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA

Location: