Dismissed

Union of India, S.C.R., Secbad and 2 Othrs v. Syed Abdul Habeb ( Died ), Hyd and 2 Othrs

Telangana HC14 Oct 2022WP/2076/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Union of India and South Central Railway against a CAT order granting compassionate allowance. The Court modified the CAT order to direct immediate payment to the widow, holding that lack of records is not a valid ground for denial under Rule 65.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000; CAT order modified to direct immediate payment of compassionate allowance to the widow.

Union of India, S.C.R., Secbad and 2 Othrs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

3295 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TEL.ANGANA AT HYDERABAD[ (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TU/ENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

¶7

WRIT PETITI ON NO: 2076 OF 2011

¶8

Between:

¶9

'1 . Union of lndia, Rep. by General lvlanager, South Central Railway Rail Nilayam Secundearbad.

¶10

1. South Central Railway, Rep. by its Chief personal Officer, Rail Nilayam Secunderabad.

¶11

South Central Railway, Rep. by its chief Workshop lv,lanager Lalaguda, Secunderabad.

¶12

...PET|T|ONERS

¶13

AND

¶14

I^{Syed Abdul Habeb ( DIED} )^{per LR}

¶15

Saleemunnisa Begum, W/o. (L) Syed Abdul Habeeb, Rlo. 1B-t-2121281111511 Jahangir Nagar, Talab Katta Hydeirabad.

¶16

The Central Administrative Tritjunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Afticle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Ce(iorari calling for the records pertaining to O.A.No..143 of 2008 dt. 1S.03.2010 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad and consequently set aside the same as illegal and violative of the Railway service ( pension ) Rules 1993.

¶19

t.A. NO 1 0F 2011(WP MP. N O:2554 OF 2011)

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend operation of the Judgment in O.A.No.143 of 2008 dated 15.03.2010 on the filed of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad. Counsel for the Petitioners: SMT. B. KAVITA YADAV,

¶21

SC FOR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI P.S. RAJASEKHAR

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

TLI-EIION'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.2O7 6 of 2011

¶27

ORDER: (Per ttu. I lotl'ble the Chief Justice ujjat Bhugan)

¶28

Heard Ms. B.Kavitha Yadav learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. P.S.Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the first respondent.

¶29

Union of India and Officials of the South Central Railways are the petitioners in this writ petition. They have challenged order dated 15.03.2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench in O.A.No.143 of 2OO8 filed by Syed Abdul Habeed, late husband of the Iirst respondent. The original application was liled before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (briefly 'the Tribunal' hereafter) seeking compassionate allowance under Rule 65 of the Railway Services (pension) Rules, 1993.

¶30

Original applicant was appointed AS Khalasi on regular basis on 05.11.1958 under the South Central ,.Railways. In the year 1975, he suffered from severe mental

¶31

)

¶32

¶33

disorder for which he was absent from Office. Orr the above ground, he was removed from service by order dated 22.1O.1975. It was alleged that original applicant was not even served u,ith a copy of the removal order. When he came to know about such removal, he had made a representation on 17.O8. 1984 which was not considered. Copy of the removal order was also not served upon him despite fresh representation dated O1.02.1996. It rvas thereafter that original applicant submitted a representation on 24.O1 .1997 seeking compassionate allowance in terms of Ruie 65 of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993.

¶34

'.:.

¶35

By memo dated 15.IO.I997, the second

¶36

respondent communicated that the request for grant of compassionate allowance may be entertained subject to availability of records. By proceedings dated 14.05. 1998, third respondent informed that the claim of the original applicant for grant of compassionate appointment was put up before the competent authority but the sarne was fejected.^{When the original applicant submitted further} representation dated 20.09.1999 for settlement of dues,

¶37

¶38

second respondent through^proceedings dated^11.O4.2000 informed the original applicant that^{the records were not} available.

¶39

Thereafter, second respondent^{vide proceedings} dated 06.09.2001 informed the original^{applicantthat he} could file the documents available^{with him to the third} respondent in r',,hich event his^{request may be considered.} Original applicant therea-fter submitted^necessary documents to the third respondent. As^{no action was} forthcoming, he submitted representation^dated 03.06.2002 seeking compassionate allowance.^Third respondent vide proceedings dated 15.Il.2OO2^{rejected the} request of the original applicant for grant^{of compassionate} appointment.

¶40

Aggrieved, late husband of the first^respondent filed the related Original Application before^{the Tribunal.}

¶41

Tlne Origina-l Application was contested^{by the} respondents by filing written statement. It was^{stated thaf- *} 'th" ".a"^{was 21 years old and there were no records.}

¶42

¶43

¶44

Therefore, competent authority rejected the request of the original applicant.

¶45

¶46

B. Tribunal vide the order dated i5.03.20 l0 held as

¶47

follows:

¶48

In the instant case, as no reasons are giuen for rejection and the impugned order is onlA a non-speaking order, this Tribunal is not inclined to go into the merits and decide the case on merits. But, in mA considered uieu, tltis is fit case to set asid.e the impugned order and dtrect the respondents to reconsider the representation of the applicant in the light of the deci.sions of this Tibunal in O.A.Nos.349 of 2006, 532 of 2OO6 and 77 of 2003. In the aboue said cases, tltis Tibunal directed the respondents therein to reconsider the representation of the applicants therein and after necessary enquiry determine uthether the applicant is in really in distress and unable to maintain himself / lrcrself arud in case it is found that theg are in dlstresg tlle respondents shall fix appropiate compas sionate allouance and pay tlrc same utith effect from th.e date of th.e representation. Therefore, similar orders are required to be passed in this O.A. also. Thus, the point is found accordinglg.

¶49

)

¶50

In the result, O.A. is disposed of setting aside the impugned rejection order ancl directing the respondents to reconsider the representation of the applicant dated, 24.O1.1997 after making necessary inquiies to determine uhether the applicant is really in distress and unable to maintain himself. The respondents are further directed that in case it is found that the applicant is reallg in distress condition, the respondents shail -fi* the compassionate allowance and pag the same to the applicant u.tith effect from that date und"er Rule 65 of Railway Seruices (pension) Rules, 1993. The order shall be complied with within three months time. Certifi.ed copg of the order of this Tibunal in O.A.No.349 of 2OO6 dated O3.OB.2OO9 shall be enclosed along ulith the order in this O.A.

¶51

Thus, from the above, it is seen that Tribunal had set aside the rejection order on the ground that it was a non-speaking order and thereafter had remanded the matter back to the respondents to take a fresh decision in accordance with Rule 65 of Railway Services (pension) Rules, 1993.

¶52

¶53

We are at pains to see that Union ol India and South Central Railways have filed this r,r,rit petition challenging such an order of the Tribunal. Considering^the nature of the order, petitioners should have complied with the same and ought not to have filed the writ^petition.

¶54

1 1. As a matter of fact, we are of the view that Tribunal ought to have allowed the Original^{Application in} its entirety instead of relegating the original applicant^to the respondents. We have been informed that the^original applicant thereafter expired and has since^been substituted by his legal representative i.e., his^{wife -} Saleemunnisa Begum.

¶55

It reflects poorly on the petitioners that^{instead of} complying with the order of the Tribunal in^{reconsidering} the claim of the original applicant,^{petitionershave chosen} to file this writ petition. Being Union of^{Indiaand the South} Central Railways i.e., the State, appellants ought^{not to} have Iiled the writ petition.

¶56

That apart, the reason^{given for rejectingthe} claim is wholly unacceptable. Non^{availability of records}

¶57

¶58

cart never Lrt: a^grouncl lor denS,ing a lcgitimate claim of an

¶59

emplo-r,e e .

¶60

At this stagc, \/e may refer to Rule 65 ol the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, which reads as u nder:

¶61

"65. Compassionate allo u)ance -

¶62

(1) A railutag seruant uho is dismissed or remoued from seruice shall forfeit his pension and gratuity:

¶63

Prouided that the authoritg competent to dlsmis.s or remoue him from seruice may, if the case is deseruing of special consideration, sanction a compassionate allowance not exceeding tuothirds of pension or gratuity or both uthich would haue been admissible to him if he tnd retired" on compensation pension.

¶64

(2) A compassionate allowance sanctioned under the proutso to sub-rule (1) shall not be less than three tlnusand jlue tatndred rupees per mensem.

¶65

From a perusal of the above, we find that Rule 65 of the aforesaid Rules provides for compassionate allowance. As per sub-rule (1) thereof, a railway servant who is dismissed or removed from service shall forfeit his

¶66

¶67

pension and gratuity. As per the proviso, the authority competent to dismiss or remove such railway servant, in a deserving case, sanction a compassionate allowance not exceeding two-thirds of pension or gratuity or both which could have been admissible to him, if he would have retired on compassionate pension. Sub Rule (21 says that compassionate a-llowance sanctioned under sub rule (1) shall not be less than Rs. 3,500/- per mensum.

¶68

i6. Reverting back to the facts of the case, we find that the original applicant was a regular Khalasi on the rolls of South Central Railways since O5.11.1958. After rendering 17 years of regular service, he was removed from service for unauthorized absence. The unauthorized absence has been explained on account of mental disorder suffered by the original applicant. Shockingly, the removal order was not served upon the original applicant or his family members, including the respondent. When the original applicant sought for compassionate allowance under Rule 65, the salne was rejected on the ground that records were not available as it was an old pending matter. 4s akeady pointed out above, that is no ground for denying

¶69

t t

¶70

)

¶71

a claim, rl,hich according^{to us is a legislativeone 'lhat} apart, Tribunal^{could very' 'nvell have allowedthe Original} Application having^{regard to the mandate of Rr-rle 65 as} extracted above^{and the facts of the case' But instead of} doing so, Tribunal^{relegated the original applicantto the} appellants for^{fresh consideration. Most unfortunately,} instead of^{complyingwith such an order of the Tribunal,} respondents who^{are Union of India and SouthCentral} Railways have chosen^{to file the present writ petition} questioning such^{order of the Tribunal.}

¶72

We feel sorry that^{this writ petition has been kept} pending for the last^{more than 1O years with an interim} stay.

¶73

That being the^{positionand taking an overall view} of the matter, we^{dismissthe writ petition with costs of} Rs.25,OO0/-^{(RupeesTwenty Five Thousand only) to be} paid by the second and third^{appellants to the first} respondent within two^{(2) months. Further we modify the} o;der passed by the^{Tribunal dated 15.03'20 10 passed in} , O.A.No.143^{of 2008 by directing respondents No' 2 & 3 to} pay compassionate allowance^{to the widowof the original}

)

applicant or other legal l-rcirs, on due verification, under Rule 65 ol the Raili.vay Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. This shall be done within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order

¶78

Let a copy of this order be also forwarded to Railway Board, so that filing of such frivolous writ petitions are avoided in future.

¶79

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand ciosed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

MEMORANDUM OF^COSTS

W.P.No.2076 of²⁰¹¹

Rs. Ps.

Cost Quantified by the^{Hon'ble Court (That the second} and third appellants^{are directedto pay c-osts.of} Rs.25,0001^{(RupeesTwenty Five Thousand Only)to} the first respdndent within^{a periodof 2 monthsfrom the} date of receipt of^{a copyof this order.}

25,000 - 00

TOTAL

25,000 - 00

SD/-P.PADMANABHA^REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR c1D

¶88

//rRUE coPY//

¶89

SECTION OFFICER