IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 28.01.2026 Balwinder Singh ....Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI ----

Present: Mr. Akhilesh Vyas, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ashish Rawal, Senior Panel Counsel for respondent No.1 – UOI.

****

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 16.08.2019 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.3 – Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal), by which, the claim raised by the petitioner for the grant of pension or compassionate allowance, has been declined. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the claim for grant of compassionate allowance is without any valid justification.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate allowance as admissible under Rule 65 of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 (for short, ‘the 1993 Rules’), has been declined without examining the same on merits and the Original Application was dism