The main legal point established in the judgment is that the entitlement to compassionate allowance under Rule 65 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 should be determined based on the absence falling within the categories of moral turpitude, dishonesty, personal gain, or intentional harm to a third party, as per the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 22.10.2018, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur whereby the original application filed by the petitioner seeking a direction upon respondent to allow him compassionate allowance in terms of Rule 65 of the Railway Services (Pension), Rules, 1993 was dismissed.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially engaged as casual labourer on 05.06.1978 and was granted temporarily status by the respondent-Railways on 01.04.1981. The petitioner was absorbed in regular establishment against Group 'D' post of Khalasi w.e.f. 30.07.1991, while posted as Box Boy at Rewari in Loco Shed, NWR owing to the illness of his wife, he remained absent from duty w.e.f. 11.04.2001. A charge-sheet SF-5 vide memo dated 28.01.2001 was served upon petitioner for remaining absent unauthorizedly from duty. On account of illness of wife and other compelling circumstances, the petitioner could not participate in the enquiry proceedings, which were held ex parte and finally a penalty of removal from service was imposed upon the petitioner, vide order dated 10-11.02.2003 was imposed upon him. The appeal filed against the findings of departmental enquiry came to be rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 16.06.2003. The petitioner was dismissed from service without any benefits of pension or gratuity, therefore, he submitted a representation dated 14.04.2015, to the authorities of the respondents-department for grant of compassionate allowance as per the proviso to Rule 65(1) of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. The Senior Divisional Personal Officer, NWR, Bikaner Division, Bikaner through a non-speaking order dated 17.06.2015, rejected the representation dated 14.04.2015.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has served the respondents for about 23 years and only on account of illness of his wife, he remained absent from duty w.e.f. 11.04.2001, without permission of the authorities of the department. Learned counsel submitted that while rejecting the representation vide order dated 17.06.2015, for grant of compassionate allowance the respondents have failed to take into consideration the financial condition, details of family members, income, liabilities etc. to ensure compliance of Rule 65 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 in its letter and spirit. To strengthen the aforesaid arguments, reliance was placed on the decision rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Mahinder Dutt Sharma Vs. Union of India reported in (2014) 11 SCC 684.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that absence of petitioner from duties was wilful. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner failed to join duties even after the charge-sheet was served upon him and during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner neither submitted any documents to show the illness of his wife during disciplinary proceedings nor did he submit any document along with his representation dated 14.04.2015, seeking compassionate allowance.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. Rule 65 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 reads as under:

“65. Compassionate Allowance:

1. A railway servant who is dismissed or removed from service shall forfeit 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 Rupees three hundred seventy-five rupees per mensum.”

7. In the case of Mahinder Dutt Sharma Vs. Union of India repor