DESH RAJ Vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER, THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, NORTHERN RAILWAY, DELHI DIVISION AND THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MEDICAL OFFICER, RAILWAY HOSPITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Original Application, the applicant has prayed for the following relief:

(2.) A counter reply was filed by the respondents on 5.7.2012. It is stated by the respondents that the applicant went on LAP w.e.f. 14.8.1981. As he did not join his duties on due date, he was declared unauthorized absent w.e.f. 1.10.1981. By Memorandum dated 22.7.1982 he was served charge -sheet in SF -5 as per Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (D & A) Rules, 1968. On the basis of the DAR enquiry, penalty of removal from service was imposed on him, vide order dated 24.6.1986, with immediate effect. In the same order, he was apprised about the opportunity of preferring appeal against the said punishment order, but he never appealed. Leave encashment was granted to him vide letter dated 2.11.1986. In compliance with the Tribunal's order dated 18.7.2011 passed in OA No. 2566 of 2011, the applicant's claim for compassionate allowance was considered by the competent authority in accordance with the Railway Boards letter dated 4.11.2008 (RBE No. 164/2008) and rejected, vide order dated 18.10.2011 (Annexure A/1). As regards his claim for payment of GPF amount, the relevant records being not traced out, no decision could be taken by the competent authority. The statement of the applicant about the lack of knowledge of the order of his removal from service has been denied by the respondents stating that the same was communicated to him by Registered Post. The respondents have pointed out the delay of 23 years on the part of the applicant in making claim for compassionate allowance.

(3.) IN the rejoinder replies, the applicant has refuted the stand taken by the respondents and submitted that claim for compassionate allowance being in the nature of pension, non -grant of compassionate allowance to the applicant is a continuing wrong and hence, the cause of action in this case is of continuous nature.