Delay in seeking compassionate allowance bars consideration; established authority decisions are final.

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member)

This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:

“To call for all the records leading to the rejection of the request for grant of Compassionate Allowance to the applicant vide No. M/T.157.UA/3/2002, dated 10.11.2022, passed by the 2^nd respondent and quash and set aside the same and consequently direct the 2^nd respondent to sanction Compassionate Allowance to the applicant and pass such other order/order.”

2. Brief facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant:

The Applicant entered Railway service as a Trainee ASM on 05.09.1988 and while working as a Station Master, he was imposed with penalty of ‘Dismissal from Service’ for the charges of unauthorized absence from duty, vide order dated 01.08.2003. After coming to know about the provision for grant of compassionate allowance, he made representation dated 01.03.2017 but his request for grant of compassionate allowance was rejected by an order dated 09.10.2017. As his subsequent representations dated 01.02.2018 & 20.01.2022 did not evoke any response, he approached this Tribunal by filling OA No.458/2022. As directed by this Tribunal, vide order dated 27.06.2022, the applicant submitted a fresh representation dated 04.08.2022, bringing out the extenuating circumstances and requesting for sanction of Compassionate Allowance. His request was rejected by an order dated 10.11.2022 of the 2^nd respondent. As there is no other efficacious remedy available, the applicant has filed the present OA seeking the aforesaid relief.

3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that proviso to sub rule (1) of Rule 65 of Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993, provides for payment of compassionate allowances, not exceeding 2/3^rd of Pension or Gratuity or both, to removed/dismissed employees in order to mitigate the suffering of the ex-employee’s family, though the ex-employee was removed/dismissed from railway services. Any order rejecting compassionate allowance without properly assessing the excruciating circumstances of the ex-employee is violating the principles enunciated by the rule makers and hence unsustainable.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that according to para 3 (iii) & (iv) of Railway Board letter dated 04.11.2008, the kind of past services rendered by the railway servant should be considered. If the past services rendered were dishonest and that was ground for dismissal/removal, then the compassionate allowance may be denied. In the present case, the applicant was dismissed from service for unauthorized absent, and there was no allegation of dishonesty, embezzlement, fraud, or misconduct involving moral turpitude. Hence, denial of compassionate allowance is not proper and unjust.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that non consideration of compassionate allowance to the applicant is against the policy and principles as enshrined in Railway Board Letter dated 28.04.2005, communicated under PBC.No.78/2005 and the instructions contained in RBE No.79/2005, dated 09.05.2005 and reiterated under PBC No.93/2022, dated 31.05.2022. Hence the same is arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant relied on the following judgements to substantiate his case (i) Judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahinder Dutt Sharma Vs Union of India & Others reported in (2014) 11 SCC 684 (ii) Judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of S. Surendran Vs DG/CSIF & Another, in WP© No.1214/2020 (iii) Judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.R. Gupta Vs Union of India in CA No.7510/1995.

Theref