The Union of India and The Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer vs Smt. K. Sulochana

Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.—The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, dated 20.4.2012 in O.A. No. 10/2011, is called in question in this writ petition. The records reveal that the respondent''s husband was appointed as Khalasi by the petitioners-Railways on 19.8.1955. He was removed from service on 21.9.1968 for his unauthorized absence from 3.8.1967 to 6.9.1967. He was unauthorizedly absent for 33 days. Since then, the respondent''s husband is missing and despite lodging police complaint, his whereabouts are not found. He could not be traced till this day. Having failed in all her attempts, the respondent approached the Tribunal seeking the pensionary benefits arising out of service of her husband. The Tribunal considering the material on record directed the petitioners to consider the case of the respondent for grant of compassionate allowance and to fix the family pension of the respondent on the basis of compassionate allowance granted to her husband.

We do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal is justified in restricting the payment of benefits in favour of the respondent from 3 years preceding 9.11.2010 (the date of filing of'' the original application). Paragraph-309 of the Indian Manual, 1950 reads thus:-

Removal or dismissal from service-No pensionary benefit may be granted to a Railway servant on whom the penalty of removal or dismissal from service is imposed; but a Railway servant so removed or dismissed, the authority who removed or dismissed him from service may award compassionate grant(s)-corresponding to ordinary gratuity and/or death cum-retirement gratuity-and/or allowance--correspondence to ordinary Pension, when he is deserving on special consideration; provided that the compassionate grant(s) and/or allowance awarded to such a Railway servant shall not exceed two-thirds of the pensionary benefits which would have been admissible to him if he had retired on medical certificate.

The aforementioned paragraph makes it clear that the discretion is vested with the petitioners to show certain amount of compassion by paying amount of gratuity in a deserving case. Such allowance to be awarded shall not exceed two-thirds of the pensionary benefits which is admissible to the employee had he retired on medical grounds. In the matter on hand, we are of the opinion that the compassion needs to be shown in favour of the respondent, inasmuch as she is a helpless lady. At this advanced age of 61 years, she will have to depend upon others. Whereabouts of her husband are not known from 1968 till this day. Undisputedly, her husband had worked for about 13 years. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal has rightly taken the decision directing the petitioners to pay certain monetary benefits to the respondent.

Since we find that order of the Tribunal is just and proper, no interference is called for. Hence, writ petition fails and accordingly, the same stands dismissed.