Removed from service for un authorised absence from duites - claim for pension etc., = can be considered as per rule 65(1) of Railway services rules = PETITIONER RESPONDENT M.V.RAMA MANOHAR RAO, MEDAK DIST VS ADDL DIV RAILWAY MANAGER, SECBAD DIV, SCR, SECBAD & 2 OTHERS - hc.ap.nic.in/csis/MainInfo=WP&mno=11344&year=2013

Removed from service for un authorised absence from duites - claim for pension etc., = can be considered as per rule 65(1) of Railway services rules =
A perusal of Rule 65(1) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 indicates that the competent authority is empowered to sanction compassionate allowance not exceeding 2/3rd of pension or gratuity or both, in deserving cases. It also indicates that the discretionary power is conferred upon the competent authority to sanction compassionate allowance while passing an order of dismissal or removal. Further, as per proceedings, dated 04.11.2005, issued by the Government of India in File No.F(E)III/2003/PN1/5, if entitlement of compassionate allowance is not considered while passing an order of removal or dismissal, the same can be considered at a later point of time. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compassionate allowance or not is a matter which is required to be considered by the respondents as per the Rules. It is to be noticed that the petitioner submitted representation to the fourth respondent on 13.07.2012, seeking to sanction compassionate allowance.
In view of pendency of such representation of the petitioner and further, as it is clarified by the Government of India in File No.F(E)III/2003/PN1/5, dated 04.11.2008, that compassionate allowance also can be sanctioned on an application filed by the railway servant subsequent to the passing of an order of removal/dismissal, we deem it appropriate to direct the fourth respondent to consider representation, dated 13.07.2012, submitted by the petitioner for grant of compassionate allowance, and communicate the decision taken thereon to him, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that such consideration shall be in accordance with the Rules and other Circular instructions, if any issued on the said aspect.
WP 11344 / 2013

WPSR 60845 / 2013
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
M.V.RAMA MANOHAR RAO, MEDAK DIST  VSADDL DIV RAILWAY MANAGER, SECBAD DIV, SCR, SECBAD & 2 OTHERS
PET.ADV. : PADMANABHA RAORESP.ADV. : BHASKAR
SUBJECT: CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALDISTRICT:  HYDERABAD
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY
and
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

WRIT PETITION No.11344  of  2013

ORDER: (per RSR, J)

          Petitioner was initially, recruited as Ticket Collector in the services of South Central Railway, Secunderabad, in 1976. He was promoted as Travelling Ticket Examiner in 1978. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on the allegation of unauthorized absence and the disciplinary authority issued Memo bearing No.C/C/568/P/449/91, dated 11.10.1993, removing him from service. The said Memo was confirmed by the appellate authority vide order, dated 08.11.1995. The said order of the appellate authority and also the memo issued by the disciplinary authority were approved by the revisional authority vide order, dated 01.08.2000. Challenging the orders passed by the appellate and revisional authorities, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, by filing O.A.No.1106 of 2001. The Tribunal by order, dated 03.08.2004, without going into the merits of the claim of the petitioner herein, dismissed the O.A. for non-prosecution, as there was no representation when the matter was called, despite it was listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’. Against such order, this Writ Petition is filed.

          In this Writ Petition, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation, his claim is only with reference to the compassionate allowance as contemplated under Rule 65(1) of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. It is submitted that as per the aforesaid Rule, the authority competent to dismiss or remove the railway servant, in deserving cases, is empowered to sanction compassionate allowance not exceeding 2/3rd of pension or gratuity or both which would have been admissible to him if he had retired on compensation pension. It is further submitted that neither the disciplinary authority nor the appellate authority had considered the case of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner had already submitted representation to the fourth respondent - General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad, seeking to sanction compassionate allowance. In spite of the same, his request has not been considered.

On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents that in view of proven misconduct, the petitioner was removed from service vide Memo, dated 11.10.1993 and the said Memo was also confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities, as such, the matter does not deserve any consideration by this Court.

          As much as the petitioner is only pressing for consideration of his claim for compassionate allowance as contemplated under Rule 65(1) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, it is not necessary to go into the merits of the matter with reference to the order of removal passed by the disciplinary authority, as confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities. A perusal of Rule 65(1) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 indicates that the competent authority is empowered to sanction compassionate allowance not exceeding 2/3rd of pension or gratuity or both, in deserving cases. It also indicates that the discretionary power is conferred upon the competent authority to sanction compassionate allowance while passing an order of dismissal or removal. Further, as per proceedings, dated 04.11.2005, issued by the Government of India in File No.F(E)III/2003/PN1/5, if entitlement of compassionate allowance is not considered while passing an order of removal or dismissal, the same can be considered at a later point of time. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compassionate allowance or not is a matter which is required to be considered by the respondents as per the Rules. It is to be noticed that the petitioner submitted representation to the fourth respondent on 13.07.2012, seeking to sanction compassionate allowance.

          In view of pendency of such representation of the petitioner and further, as it is clarified by the Government of India in File No.F(E)III/2003/PN1/5, dated 04.11.2008, that compassionate allowance also can be sanctioned on an application filed by the railway servant subsequent to the passing of an order of removal/dismissal, we deem it appropriate to direct the fourth respondent to consider representation, dated 13.07.2012, submitted by the petitioner for grant of compassionate allowance, and communicate the decision taken thereon to him, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that such consideration shall be in accordance with the Rules and other Circular instructions, if any issued on the said aspect.

          Subject to the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

          Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
______________________

R.SUBHASH REDDY, J


6th JUNE, 2013.
_________________
                                                                         A.V.SESHA SAI, J

kvni

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515