D WIDROSE Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

(2.) PETITIONER is the widow of one Mr. P. A. Widrose, who was working under the fourth respondent. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the husband of the petitioner in the year 1982 on the allegation that he had remained unauthorisedly absent for 84 days without any sanction of leave. Such disciplinary proceeding was conducted ex-parte and ultimately, by order dated 12. 8. 1983, the husband of the petitioner was removed from service. Appeal filed by such employee was dismissed on 31. 7. 1984. Thereafter, in the further appeal filed in August, 1984, by the employee, no orders were passed. In the meantime, unfortunately, the husband of the petitioner died on 20. 11. 1990. Thereafter, the petitioner made several representations to various authorities claiming payment of family pension or compassionate allowance by invoking Rule 65 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules" ). However, by communication dated 25. 7. 1996, the claim of the widow was rejected. Thereafter, the Welfare Officer issued a further order stating that the petitioner was not eligible for grant of family pension or compassionate allowance or any other assistance. After a few more representations, the petitioner filed Original Application in Diary No. 2172 of 2000 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which has been dismissed by the Tribunal only on the ground of limitation as, according to the Tribunal, the issue related to 1983, the year in which the husband of the petitioner was removed from service and, therefore, such matter cannot be agitated after a long lapse of time. The present writ petition is filed for quashing such order of the Tribunal and for issuing a direction to respondents 2 to 4 to accord family pension and compassionate allowance with effect from 20. 11. 1990, the date on which the husband of the petitioner died.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondents 3 and 4, wherein, it has been indicated that family pension is payable only if pension was payable to the husband. In the present case, the husband having been removed from service and being not entitled for pension, the widow cannot claim pension. The respondents have also taken the stand that the provisions contained in Rule 107 giving power to relax the rules in case of undue hardship, are also not applicable to the facts of the present case.