UNION OF INDIA Vs. DHANIBEN R PARMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has, been filed by the petitioners-Union of India, through General Manager, Western Railway, Mumbai and others being aggrieved by order dated 12-4-2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "C.A.T.") in O.A. No. 274 of 2002 (Smt. Dhaniben R. Parmar v. Union of India & Ors.), vide impugned order dated 12-4-2005, the C.A.T. has set aside the memorandum dated 22-7-2003 passed by the petitioners withdrawing the benefit of grant of compassionate allowance to the respondent, sanctioned vide memorandum dated 19-6-2000. Further, the petitioners have been directed to pay the amount of compassionate allowance in terms of their order dated 19-6-2000 within four months of the receipt of the order of C.A.T. failing which they will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the expiry of the period till payment. The C.A.T. has further held that the respondent is entitled to the grant of family pension in accordance with the Rules. Hence, this petition.

(2.) To appreciate the controversy in question a brief summary of the facts leading to the passing of order dated 12-4-2005 of C.A.T. will be necessary. The respondent is the widow of Shri Ramanbhai P. Parmar, who was employed with the petitioner as Pointsman under SS BRCY. The deceased-husband of the respondent faced departmental proceedings vide charge-sheet dated 6-6-1990. A preliminary inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer on 10-11-1991. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report and vide order dated 4-2-1993 the disciplinary authority removed Shri Ramanbhai P. Parmar from service. On 25-1-1999 Shri Ramanbhai P. Parmar expired.

(3.) After his death, the respondent filed O.A. No. 152 of 2000 stating therein that her husband had not filed any appeal or revision against the penalty of removal imposed upon him, since he had remained hospitalised. She made a prayer for grant of compassionate allowance as per Paras 309 and 310 of the Manual of Railway Pension Rules, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "M.R.P.R., 1950"), read with Circular dated 8-4-1992. After hearing both the parties, the C.A.T. directed that the O.A. be treated as a representation by the widow of the deceased employee for seeking compassionate allowance in terms of Circular dated 8-4-1992 and Paras 309 and 310 of M.R.P.R., 1950 of Pension Rules. The petitioners were directed to consider the representation and communicate the decision to the widow within three months from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order. The respondent was given the liberty to file a fresh O.A., in case she was aggrieved by the order passed by the petitioners on the said representation.