Compassionate allowance may be granted to a railway servant removed from service if deserving, particularly considering long service and lack of evidence against misconduct.

ORAL ORDER

1. Western Railways through The General Manager has filed this petition challenging an award dated 02.05.2019 of Central Government Industrial Tribunal (“CGIT” for short)-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (CGIT) No.680 of 2004.

2. Brief facts, referred in the petition, are as under:

The respondent herein is a legal heir of deceased employee, who had joined services of the petitioner as Mali with the Loco Shed Vatva, Ahmedabad in the pay scale of Rs.750-940/-. It was case of the petitioner before Labour Court that deceased workman remained absent from duty unauthorizedly for the period from 22.02.1994 to 05.03.1995 (61 days), and therefore was issued charge-sheet dated 20.03.1995. The explanation of the deceased workman was considered. Enquiry Officer was appointed and after following due procedure, Enquiry Officer gave his report holding the charges as proved and thereafter, the order of removal dated 17.12.1996 was passed. Against the order of removal dated 17.12.1996, the deceased workman preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, and the appeal was rejected. Against the said order, the deceased workman preferred review appeal on 20.12.1996 before Sr.DME (DL), VTA, which was also rejected. Pursuant to the rejection of his appeal and review application, the deceased workman raised a dispute before CGIT-Cum-Labour Court and during the pendency of the said reference, the workman expired and therefore, legal heir of deceased workman (respondent herein) preferred an application seeking family pension. The said application of the respondent herein has been accepted by order dated 02.05.2019. Aggrieved by which, the present petition is filed.

3. Heard Ms.Archana Amin, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Anant Anand Singh, learned advocate for the respondent herein (legal heir of the deceased workman).

4. Ms.Archana Amin, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that removal of deceased workman was after following due procedure of inquiry and upon consideration of explanation by the workman. The order of removal was again considered by Appellate Authority, wherein considering the nature of misconduct, the appeal filed by the workman was rejected. Reference was pending challenging order of removal dated 17.12.1996. Since the reference filed by the workman has not attained the finality and order of removal remained as on the date of death of the workman, he would not be entitled for family pension because the deceased workman was a removed workman and therefore, the award is erroneous.

4.1 In support, relying upon provision to Rule 65(1) of the Railway Service Pension Rules ,1993 (“the Rules” for short), learned advocate submitted as per Rule 65(1) of the Rules, a railway servant who is dismissed or removed from service, the Railway shall forfeit his pension and gratuity. In this case, the deceased workman was removed from service and therefore, he would not be entitled for Compassionate allowance under Rule 65 of the Rules.

4.2 Further, proviso of Rule 65 provides that, if the case deserves special consideration, the powers are assigned to the authority. Proviso would be applicable in case of dismissal or removal of workman of the petitioner but this discretion is given to the authority competent to dismiss or remove the workman from service and therefore, award of the CGIT-cum- Labour Court directing to consider case favorably is erroneous.

4.3 On the aspect of benefits given to similarly situated employees, she submitted that inaction or mistake on the part of the officer may not be treated as precedent and therefore also, award of CGIT-cum-Labour Court is erroneous and deserves to be quashed and set aside.

5. On the other hand, Mr.Anant Anand Singh, learned advocate for the respondent (legal heir of deceased workman) submitted that against the or