OM WATI Vs. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner, who is the widow of the late employee being her husband Sh. Tuhi Ram Sharma, seeks compassionate allowance under Regulation 27 of the Reserve Bank of India Pension Regulations, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations'). This Regulation 27 of the Regulations reads as under: -

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the husband of the petitioner was dismissed from services way back ie over two decades back on 30.4.1993 on account of his unauthorized absence from service. This order became final. The husband of the petitioner in fact thereafter died on 13.5.2004. Petitioner thereafter filed a representation on 27.9.2013, i.e 20 years after the dismissal of her husband from service and around 10 years after the death of her husband, for compassionate allowance in terms of the Regulation 27 of the Regulations quoted above.

(3.) BY virtue of an order dated 2.9.2014, in W.P.(C) No. 233/2014, respondents were directed to pass a speaking order deciding the representation of the petitioner, and therefore, the representation has been decided by the respondents vide its impugned speaking order dated 26.9.2014 rejecting the request for compassionate allowance. The sole reason given in the impugned order dated 26.9.2014 is that compassionate allowance cannot be allowed under Regulation 27 of the Regulations unless the employee himself had received pension or compassionate allowance from the bank. A reading of Regulation 32 of the Regulations however shows that the same has no application to a compassionate allowance which is granted under Regulation 27 of the Regulations because Regulation 32 of the Regulations deals with grant of family pension. Regulation 32 of the Regulations does not deal with compassionate allowance when the employee is dismissed or terminated from services, and in which latter case only Regulation 27 of the Regulations will apply.