Disposed

S. Pitchai Namasivayam, v. the Divisional Security

Madras HC12 Sept 2011WP(MD)/10329/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench directed the Divisional Security Commissioner to consider the petitioner's 2011 representation for compassionate allowance under a 2005 Railway Board notification within six weeks, clarifying this is not a positive order.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Divisional Security Commissioner to consider the representation and pass orders within six weeks.

S. Pitchai Namasivayam, Vs the Divisional… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.09.2011

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(MD).No.10329 of 2011

¶5

S.Pitchai Namasivayam : Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

1.The Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Palghat Railway Junction, Southern Railway, Palghat Division, Palghat, Kerala.

¶8

2.The Chief Security, Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Southern Railway, Moore Market Company, Chennai 600 003. : Respondents

¶9

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider and pass orders based on the petitioner's representation dated 25.07.2011 in the light of the notification vide Railway Board No.F(E)/ 111/2003/PNI/5, dated 09.05.2005 for the grant of compassionate allowance and family pension and other benefits to the petitioner.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Arun Murugan For Respondents : Mr.S.Manohar

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

Pleadings disclose that the petitioner joined the Railway Protection Force on 21.06.1963 as Rakshak (Constable) and subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (ASIPF). Pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him for receipt of bribe from a Railway Contractor, on 01.07.1992, the petitioner was removed from service. The prosecution launched against him failed. Removal from service has been sustained in W.P.No.11687 of 1993 and the appeal in W.A.No.392 of 2002 also ended against the petitioner.

¶13

According to the petitioner, as per the Railway Board notification No.F(E) 111/2003/PNI/5, dated 09.05.2005, compassionate allowance can be sanctioned to the removed/dismissed railway servant and family pension to eligible members of the family, on the basis of the representation received from the concerned employee. It is the further case of the petitioner that in this regard, he sent a representation dated 19.10.2008 and a further representation dated 25.07.2011, requesting to grant compassionate allowance. As both the representations have not been considered so far, the petitioner has come forward with the present Writ Petition seeking for a Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider and pass orders on the representation dated 25.07.2011, in the light of the notification vide Railway Board No.F(E) 111/2003/PNI/5, dated 09.05.2005.

¶14

Considering the limited request, Mr.S.Manohar,learned Standing https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Counsel, was directed to take notice for the respondents.

¶15

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

¶17

Perusal of the notification shows that the grant of compassionate allowance is permissible to the removed/dismissed railway servants and family pension to the eligible members of the family on the basis of representations received from them. The notification further reads that the power is conferred on the authority competent to dismiss or remove the railway servant from service. The notification also states that in respect of past cases, where the competent authority, in exercise of its discretionary powers, had not sanctioned compassionate allowance at the time of passing orders of removal/dismissal or immediately thereafter, the said cases cannot be re-opened for review on the basis of representations received from the removed/dismissed employees and members of their family at a later date. The notification further reads that if no mention about the compassionate allowance, etc., is made by the competent authority while passing orders of removal/dismissal, the concerned Head of Office shall resubmit the case file along with relevant information/guidelines to the concerned competent authority and obtain its decision for or against sanction of compassionate allowance or gratuity or both.

¶18

In such view of the matter, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim, a direction is issued to the Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Palghat Railway Junction, Southern Railway, Palghat Division, Palghat, Kerala, the first respondent herein or any other competent authority to consider and pass orders on the representation dated 25.07.2011. It is made clear that the direction granted by this Court should not be construed as a positive order against the first respondent. The first respondent shall consider as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit. If the petitioner is entitled to compassionate allowance or family pension, as the case may be, the concerned Head of Office shall re-submit the case file along with relevant information/guidelines to the concerned competent authority, as expeditiously as possible, to enable the competent authority to pass orders, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶19

With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No

costs.

SML To

SUB ASST REGISTRAR

1.The Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Palghat Railway Junction, Southern Railway, Palghat Division, Palghat, Kerala.

¶25

2.The Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Southern Railway, Moore Market Company, Chennai 600 003.

¶26

1CC TO MR. S. MANOHAR, ADVOCATE, SR: 31224: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ORDER MADE IN W.P.(MD).No.10329 of 2011 DM::2011:SEPTEMBER:26:: 2P:4C:: 12.09.2011

S. Pitchai Namasivayam, v. the Divisional Security

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Pitchai Namasivayam, v. the Divisional Security

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. C.Sugathan, Vs Director General

D. Saravanan Vs the Regional Transport

M/S. S.S. Cashew Exports, Vs Assistant Provident Fund

S. Stephen Isaac Sundaram, Vs the District Collector

S. Irudayaraj Vs the District Collector

National Pulses Research Vs the Regional Provident Fund