Dismissed

Md.Saleem v. The General Manager

Telangana HC25 Nov 2016WP/40587/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition filed by an ex-employee of the South Central Railway challenging the dismissal of his application for compassionate allowance by the Central Administrative Tribunal, holding that the Tribunal correctly relied on a specific circular regarding deserving cases.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed. The Tribunal order is upheld.

Md.Saleem Vs The General Manager — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. SHYAM PRASAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION No. 40587 of 2016

¶5

ORDER: (Per VRS,J)

¶6

Aggrieved by the dismissal of his application by the Central Administrative Tribunal, claiming the grant of compassionate allowance, an ex-employee of the South Central Railway has come up with the present writ petition.

¶7

Heard Mr. P.L. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶8

The petitioner joined service on 01.03.1974 and he was removed from service with effect from 01.01.1988. The order of removal has attained finality. After 25 years of his removal, the petitioner made an application for the grant of compassionate allowance under Rule 65 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules. When it was rejected, he went before the Tribunal and the Tribunal dismissed the application, on the ground that Rule 65 would apply only in deserving cases and the what are deserving cases have to be considered, in the light of a Circular bearing No.90/2005, dated 14.06.2005.

¶9

VRSJ & GSPJ W.P.No.40587 of 2016

¶10

¶11

We find that the order of the Tribunal does not call for any interference. Rule 65, which speaks about the grant of allowance in deserving cases, is silent as to what are deserving cases. Therefore, the Circular, dated 14.06.2005, holds the field. Obviously, the petitioner does not specify the criteria laid down therein. Hence, the dismissal of the application by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶12

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions if any pending in the

¶13

writ petition shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶14

__________________________
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J
_____________________
G. SHYAM PRASAD, J
25 th November, 2016
cbs

¶15

VRSJ & GSPJ W.P.No.40587 of 2016

¶16

¶17

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN √ AND

¶18

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. SHYAM PRASAD

¶19

Writ Petition No. 40587 of 2016 (Per VRS,J)

¶20

25^th November, 2016

¶21

cbs

Md.Saleem v. The General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md.Saleem v. The General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Sivaram Yarns Private Limited Vs Union of India, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance

N.Lakshmi Narasimha Reddy, Vs Vijaya Bank

Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swami Vari Devasthanam, Vs Dwivedula Anudeep

M/s.Sree Ramachandra Industries Private Limited Vs The Authorised Officer

The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Vs M. Nagu S/o. Khanna Rao

B. Narayana Vs Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited