OM PRAKASH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dtd. 22/10/2018, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur whereby the original application filed by the petitioner seeking a direction upon respondent to allow him compassionate allowance in terms of Rule 65 of the Railway Services (Pension), Rules, 1993 was dismissed. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially engaged as casual labourer on 5/6/1978 and was granted temporarily status by the respondent-Railways on 1/4/1981. The petitioner was absorbed in regular establishment against Group 'D' post of Khalasi w.e.f. 30/7/1991, while posted as Box Boy at Rewari in Loco Shed, NWR owing to the illness of his wife, he remained absent from duty w.e.f. 11/4/2001. A chargesheet SF-5 vide memo dtd. 28/1/2001 was served upon petitioner for remaining absent unauthorizedly from duty. On account of illness of wife and other compelling circumstances, the petitioner could not participate in the enquiry proceedings, which were held ex parte and finally a penalty of removal from service was imposed upon the petitioner, vide order dated 10/11/2.2003 was imposed upon him. The appeal filed against the findings of departmental enquiry came to be rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dtd. 16/6/2003. The petitioner was dismissed from service without any benefits of pension or gratuity, therefore, he submitted a representation dtd. 14/4/2015, to the authorities of the respondents-department for grant of compassionate allowance as per the proviso to Rule 65(1) of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. The Senior Divisional Personal Officer, NWR, Bikaner Division, Bikaner through a nonspeaking order dtd. 17/6/2015, rejected the representation dtd. 14/4/2015.

(2.) Indisputably, the petitioner was not removed from service on account of any act of moral turpitude or dishonesty towards his employer. The absence was also not on account of any personal gain or to intentionally cause harm to any third person.

(3.) In the considered opinion of this Court, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur and respondents have not taken into consideration, the various paramerters led down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Mahinder Dutt Sharma (supra) while determining the claim of the petitioner based on Rule 65 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993.