Bombay High Court
Jagmiabai Wd/O Late Devkaran vs Union Of India Thr. General Manager, ... on 4 September, 2024
Author: M.S. Jawalkar
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote, Mukulika Shrikant Jawalkar
1 10-1490-2023.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 1490/2023
Smt. Jagmiabai Wd/o Late Devkaran
Vs.
Union of India through it's General Manager, South East Central
Railway, Bilaspur and others
Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders
of Coram, Appearances, Court's
orders or directions and
Registrar's orders
Mr. C.L. Deharia, Advocate for Petitioner
Mr. C.J. Dhumane, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3
CORAM: AVINASH G. GHAROTE AND
SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, JJ.
DATED : 4th SEPTEMBER, 2024
1. The petition challenges the judgment
dated 29.03.2019, passed by the learned Central
Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur in Original
Application No. 2274/2014, by which the claim
of the petitioner for compassionate allowance on
account of the removal of her husband, who was
working as a Porter with the respondents has
been rejected.
2. Mr. Deharia, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits, that the refusal to grant
compassionate allowance, is contrary to the
policy of the respondents dated 27.01.2009
(page 29) and since it is an admitted position,
2 10-1490-2023.odt
that the husband of the petitioner was engaged,
but was removed the refusal to grant such
compassionate allowance, is unwarranted and
contrary to the said policy. He, therefore,
submits, that this action of refusal and rejection
of the Original Application by the learned Central
Administrative Tribunal be quashed and set aside
and the respondents be directed to pay the
compassionate allowance to the petitioner.
3. Mr. Dhumane, learned counsel for the
respondents submits, that the grant of
compassionate allowance, is not as a matter of
right, but is discretionary based upon cases
deserving special consideration and since the
husband of the petitioner, who was working as
Porter was removed on account of absenteeism,
the exercise of discretion is correct.
4. It is not in dispute, that the husband
of the petitioner was appointed as Causal Labour
with the respondents and had thereafter worked
as temporary Gangman and became permanent
on 26.10.1964, however, due his absenteeism on
account of illness he was removed from the
service w.e.f. 31.7.1975, under the Disciplinary
Rules. He is said to have passed away on
06.02.1984 on account of TB. The policy for
compassionate allowance as framed on
3 10-1490-2023.odt
27.01.2009, in terms of the proviso to Rule 65(1)
of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993,
indicates, that where an employee is dismissed or
removed and ineligible to get the pension, in
cases deserving of special consideration sanction
of a compassionate allowance not exceeding two-
thirds of the pension or gratuity or both which
would have been admissible to him if he had
retired on compensation pension would be
considered. Such power is vested in the authority
competent to appoint or dismiss a railway
servant, which has to be exercised by the said
authority suo motu, at the time of passing of
order of dismissal or removal from service or
immediately thereafter.
5. Rule 65 of the Railway Services
(Pension) Rules, 1993, which contemplates
compassionate allowance, mandates that a
railway servant who has been dismissed or
removed from the service shall forfeit his pension
and gratuity. The proviso thereto, however,
permits the competent authority empowers to
dismiss or remove him if a case is made out
deserving of special consideration, to 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
4 10-1490-2023.odt
compensation pension. The grant of such
compassionate allowance, in terms of the
communication dated 09.05.2005 of the Railway
Board Establishment, is akin to grant of a
pension, though at a lesser rate and, therefore,
the requirements for grant of pension have to be
complied with which would be minimum
permanent service of ten years. The
communication dated 27.03.2014 indicates, that
the husband of the petitioner was empaneled for
regular appointment as Porter on 03.11.1972
and was removed from service as a disciplinary
measure w.e.f. 31.7.1975 vide order dated
29.07.1975. The initial engagement of the
husband of the petitioner, as a Shed Khalashi
was on 26.10.1964, he, however, stood
discharged from such temporary engagement on
20.6.1966. He thereafter came to be appointed
as a Sub-Porter on 22.08.1966. It would,
therefore, be apparent, that the minimum period
of ten years, necessary for claiming pension had
not been completed by the husband of the
petitioner. That apart, the question of grant of
compassionate allowance in terms of the proviso
to Rule 65(1) of the Railway Services (Pension)
Rules, 1993 has to be considered at the time
when an employee is sought to be removed or
5 10-1490-2023.odt
dismissed from the service by the authority
competent to do so. The policy dated
27.01.2009, cannot be said to be an independent
policy, but it only clarifies and reiterates the
position as provided in the proviso to Rule 65(1)
of the said Rules. That being the position, in our
considered opinion, no ground has been pointed
out to indicate, that discretion has been
incorrectly exercised by the authorities. We do no
see any reason to interfere in the impugned
judgment dated 29.03.2019 by the learned
Central Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur. The
petition is dismissed. No costs.
(SMT. M.S.JAWALKAR,J.) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE,J.)
MP Deshpande
Signed by: Mr. M.P. Deshpande
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 04/09/2024 14:59:47
