GEETHA KRISHNANKUTTY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is claimed that husband of the petitioner served the Railway Protection Force for 17 years and while working as Inspector, was removed from the service on proved misconduct of accepting illegal gratification. Husband of the petitioner was not granted (nor the claim rejected) compassionate allowance as the husband of the petitioner was dismissed. Challenging dismissal from service, husband of the petitioner filed O.P. No.13882 of 1998. While that Original Petition was pending, he expired. Petitioner and other legal representatives got impleaded in the said Original Petition. That Original Petition and the Appeal arising therefrom were dismissed on 27.01.2009 and 19.06.2009, respectively. Petitioner has made representations claiming compassionate allowance but the claim was rejected as per Exts.P6 and P9, orders dated 07.08.2009 and 07.06.2011, respectively. Unrelenting, petitioner again made a claim for compassionate allowance as per Ext.P10, which is pending consideration (as submitted by the learned counsel). The learned counsel submitted that in view of paragraph 3 of Ext.P7 dated 04.11.2008 the authority concerned has to consider Ext.P10 afresh notwithstanding Exts.P6 and P9, orders.

(2.) I have heard the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 3 and 4 as well. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that since earlier representations were rejected as per Exts.P6 and P9, orders there is no scope for any fresh consideration of the claim made in Ext.P10.

(3.) PARAGRAPH 3 of Ext.P7 states as under: