UNION OF INDIA Vs. SARDAR BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) QUESTIONING the order, dated 17. 10. 2007, passed in OA No. 532 of 2006, on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad (for short 'tribunal'), this writ petition has been filed.

(2.) FACTS in brief are: One Syed ghouse (hereinafter called as "the deceased employee"), worked as Goods Driver in the South Central Railways for a period of 32 years. While the deceased employee was discharging his services as Goods Driver, on 27. 8. 1978, there was derailment of 16 goods wagons on arrival to KRA Railway station. In that regard, a disciplinary enquiry was initiated against him. Similarly, a criminal case was also registered by the Railway police and a charge sheet was filed before xii-Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways, secunderabad, and the same was numbered as C. C. No. 155 of 1981. In the disciplinary enquiry he was found guilty of the charge framed against him and accordingly he was dismissed from service on 22. 2. 1980, whereas in the criminal case he was found not guilty of the charge levelled against him, wherein it was held that there was no evidence to prove the alleged negligent driving on his part. Thereupon, he made a representation to the 2nd petitioner enclosing therewith a copy of the judgment in C. C. No. 155 of 1981, seeking his reinstatement into service. But unfortunately, during the pendency of the said representation, the deceased employee died on 1. 6. 1987 due to heart attack. Thereafter, the respondent herein, who is none other than the widow of the deceased employee, made a mercy appeal, dated 9. 4. 1988, to the 1st petitioner to review the dismissal orders and that she also renewed her request on 1. 6. 1988. It is stated that though she moved from pillar to post, there was no response from the petitioners-authorities. However, she made another representation, dated 1. 10. 2004, to the 1st petitioner seeking sanction of compassionate allowance or grant in terms of Rule 65 of the Railway Servants (Pension) Rules, 1993 and Circular of the railway Board in CPO/sc Lr. No. P (R)500/ xvi, dated 1. 12. 1995 read with SL Circular no. 1457 1995. As there was no response, she approached the Tribunal by filing OA no. 621 of 2005, wherein the Tribunal vide order, dated 11. 10. 2005, directed the petitioners herein to consider sanction of compassionate allowance to the widow of the deceased employee from the date of removal from service in terms of the abovementioned Rule and Circular within a period of one month from the date of receipt of that order. Pursuant thereto, the 2nd petitioner passed an order dated 18. 4. 2006 stating that the above said Circular has no prospective effect and as such, it does not cover the case of the deceased employee who was removed from service on 22. 2. 1980 and died on 1. 6. 1987 and that as the deceased employee had not been sanctioned the compassionate allowance during his lifetime, the respondent herein cannot be granted compassionate allowance. Assailing the said order, the respondent herein filed O. A. No. 532 of 2006, seeking a direction to the petitioners herein to consider for sanction of compassionate allowance to her from the date of removal of the deceased employee from service. The tribunal having elaborately dealt with the matter, by its order, dated 17. 10. 2007, while setting aside the order, dated 18. 4. 2006 passed by the 2nd petitioner, directed the petitioners to reconsider grant of compassionate allowance in accordance with rule 65 of Pension Rules in the light of the observations made therein and fix the quantum of compassionate family pension and pay the same with arrears from the date of removal of the deceased employee till that date and continue to pay the family pension in accordance with the above Rule, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Challenging the said order, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.

(3.) IT is contended by the learned standing Counsel for the petitioners that the case of the respondent is not a deserving case for granting compassionate allowance as the deceased employee did not make any application for such allowance immediately after his removal from service, as provided for under Rule 65 of the Railway services (Pension) Rules, 1993. It is further contended that the Circular of the Railway board, dated 1. 12. 1995, has prospective effect and as such, it has no application to the present case.