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 dismissed on the ground of delay which is incorrect and therefore, the order dated 16.08.2019 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Tribunal, is liable to be set aside and the direction needs to be given to the respondent to grant him the benefit of the compassionate allowance, as admissible under Rule 65 of the 1993 Rules.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file with their able assistance.

4. It may be noticed that the services of the petitioner was terminated on 30.06.1995. The cause of action to claim the compassionate allowance arose on the said date in case the petitioner felt that he is entitled for the same. As per Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, (for short, ‘the 1985 Act’), Section 21 whereof is extracted hereunder, the prescribed limitation period to approach the Tribunal for redressal of grievance is 01 year from the date of cause of action arose in case any written order is passed and in those case where any benefit is being claimed or redressal of grievance is sought by seeking direction, the prescribed period of limitation stipulated is 01 year and 06 months from the date cause of action accrues in the way that after filing of a representation, when no order has been passed within six months of such filing, and thereafter a period of one year has been prescribed within which application can be admitted by the Tribunal. In the present case, as the claim was raised for grant of benefit while seeking direction for same, the maximum limitation period prescribed is 01 year and 06 months which period stood expired much before the claim was raised in the year 2018, i.e. after a period of 23 years.

“21. Limitation.

(1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application —

(a) in a case where a final order such as is mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made in connection with the grievance unless the application is made, within one year from the date on which such final order has been made;

(b) in a case where an appeal or representation such as is mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made and a period of six months had expired thereafter without such final order having been made, within one year from the date of expiry of the said period of six months.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where —

(a) the grievance in respect of which an application is made had arisen by reason of any order made at any time during the period of three years immediately preceding the date on which the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal becomes exercisable under this Act in respect of the matter to which such order relates; and (b) no proceedings for the redressal of such grievance had been commenced before the said date before any H