Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 6763
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
K. Haripal, Judicial Member
Narayanan Kutty P – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application No. 180/00466/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rekha Vasudevan
For the Respondents: V.A. Shaji
Compassionate allowance under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules is a discretionary benefit that should not be denied solely on grounds of unauthorized absence unless the misconduct falls within the specific categories of moral turpitude or dishonesty as defined by judicial precedent.
Headnote:The applicant, a former railway employee, challenged an order rejecting his claim for compassionate allowance following his dismissal from service due to unauthorized absence. The respondents contended that the request was highly belated and that the applicant had failed to adhere to inquiry proceedings. The Tribunal analyzed the discretionary nature of granting compassionate allowance under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules and invoked the principles set forth in Mahinder Dutt Sharma v. Union of India regarding the grounds for such denial. Key issues included the eligibility for compassionate allowance despite dismissal and the impact of long delays on the maintainability of the claim. The ratio decidendi emphasizes that the denial of compassionate allowance must be based on specific grounds of moral turpitude or dishonesty, and simple unauthorized absence does not reflexively disqualify an employee from this discretionary benefit. The court clarified that pensionary claims involving compassionate allowance provide a recurring cause of action. In the result, the impugned order of rejection was quashed, and the respondents were directed to process the compassionate allowance and PF dues with applicable interest.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicant's history of service and grievance regarding dismissal and pension denial. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. disciplinary proceedings regarding unauthorized absence are valid and final. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 17) |
| 3. criteria and discretion for granting compassionate allowance under pension rules. (Para 14 , 16 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 4. managing delay in claims involving recurring causes of action. (Para 20 , 25) |
| 5. directive to estimate benefits where specific records are missing. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
The Original Application having been heard on 27.05.2026, the Tribunal on 02.06.2026 delivered the following:
O R D E R :-
1. Applicant is a former Khalasi Helper (Electrical), Diesel Loco Shed, Ernakulam. He had started as Casual Labourer, later absorbed in regular service on 10.05.1980 in Engineering Department. He continued there till 04.05.1989. On 05.05.1989 he was shifted to the Diesel Loco Shed, Erode, where he worked till 14.04.1990. Later, he was transferred to Diesel Loco Shed, Ernakulam. According to the applicant, while working at Ernakulam, he fell sick due to chronic Rheumatic Arthritis and was unable to attend the duties; though he had sent necessary medical certificates and leave applications, nothing was adhered to and he was deemed to have been on unauthorised absence. Disciplinary proceedings initiated against him resulted in imposing penalty of dismissal from service from 13.07.1999. The grievance of the applicant is that Annexure A-1 order of dismissal was not served on him and he was unaware of the same. He came to know about it only on getting Annexure A-2 communication dated 22.02.2010 when he obtained a copy under the Right to Information Act. A copy of letter dated 17.12.1999 attached with Annexure A-2 was not legible, but indicated that the penalty advice was sent to him by registered post on 03.08.1999 and one copy was exhibited on the Notice Board of the Diesel Shed in the presence of two witnesses Sri T.R. Muraleedharan and Sri O.M Muraleedharan, Electrical Fitters. It further indicated that the copy of the penalty advice sent to him had returned unclaimed, which was exhibited in the Notice Board on 19.08.1999 in the presence of Sri T.M. Villog and Sri K.M Mathew, Mechanical Fitters on 23.09.1999. Referring to the said communications, he has submitted that he was not served with a copy of Annexure A-1 penalty advice. He was also not given any benefit relating to the employment. Thus, on 24.08.2008, he approached the 3rd respondent through the 4th respondent with Annexure A-3 representation. On 24.08.2008 it was duly forwarded by the 4th respondent to the 3rd respondent. As he did not get any reply, Annexure A-5 communication was issued on 30.12.2009. Therefore, he was asked to submit the prescribed formats for settling the dues, which is marked as Annexure A-6. Annexure A-6 was duly forwarded to the 3rd respondent with the information that his family composition was verified.
2. Thereafter, he was asked to produce the termination order, copy of which was not in his possession. So, he approached the 5th respondent with Annexure A-8 representation. Since nothing was heard, again, Annexure A-9 representation was given, which also was forwarded to the 3rd respondent. On 06.09.2010, the 3rd respondent had notified a pension Adalat, where the applicant had given Annexure A-10 request. Annexure A-10 was disposed of by Annexure A-11 informing that he will not get pensionary benefits; however, it was stated that action was being made to locate his PF details and other payments made by him. According to the applicant, since he was dismissed from service, in terms of the proviso to Rule 65 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, he is entitled to get compassionate allowance. He has also referred to paragraphs 309 and 310 of the Manual of the Railway Pension Rules, 1950 .
3. As his representations were not considered, he approached this Tribunal with OA No. 457/2018 which was re
