Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
Smt. M. Agneesu vs Uoi on 29 December, 2008
IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH :: HYDERABAD O.A.No. 767 of 2007 Date of Order: 29.12.2008 Between: Smt. M. Agneesu ..Applicant And 1.UOI, rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. 2.The Divisional Railway Manager, South Central Railway, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3.The Sr. Divisional Engineer (Coord.), South Central Railway, Vijayawada, Krishna District. ..Respondents Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. G.S. Rao, Advocate Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. D. Madhava Reddy, SC for Railways. CORAM: The Hon'ble Mr. R. SANTHANAM, Member (Admn). *** ORAL ORDER
(As per Hon'ble Mr. R. SANTHANAM, Member (Admn).) Heard Mr. G.S. Rao, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. D. Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel for the respondents.
2. The applicant claims that her husband was appointed as Gang Man on 22.12.1992 in the scale of pay of Rs.775-1025/- under Permanent Way Inspector, Tadepalligudem of Vijayawada Division of South Central Railway. He was promoted as Gate Man. According to the applicant, her husband had put in more than 13 years of regular service as permanent railway servant. He had fallen sick between 2003 and 2005 in different periods and died on 15.04.2005. The applicant's family consists of herself, her two daughters aged 17 and 15 years and her son aged 13 years. The applicant had submitted representation dated 10.09.2005 to the respondents with a request to settle the dues due to her deceased husband and arrange family pension benefits. So far, no action has been taken by the respondents. She submitted a detailed representation again on 21.11.2006 to the 1st respondent to settle the dues i.e. PF, gratuity, LIC amount etc., but no action has been taken. She has therefore filed this O.A. claiming for relief of sanction of family pension from the date of death of her husband and to provide compassionate appointment in terms of the Railway Board letter No. E(Ng) 111/78/RC-1/1 dated 30.04.1979.
3. The respondents have filed reply statement in which they have stated that the applicant's husband while working as Sr. Gate Man/ Marampalli under Section Engineer/ Permanent Way/ Tuni had remained absent unauthorizedly during the period from 16.04.1998 to 21.01.2002 for a period of 951 days intermittently without proper sanction of leave or observing Railway Medical Attendance Rules. According to the respondents, ex-employee Sri M. Nageswara Rao was a habitual absentee. During the financial years 1993-94 he was absent for 234 days and in 1994-95 for 248 days and in 1995-96 he was absent for 242 days and in 1996-97 he was absent for 37 days. According to the respondents, a proper inquiry was conducted and the disciplinary authority accepted the inquiry officer's report and awarded the punishment of removal from service with effect from 20.03.2003. Copy of the removal order is filed as Annexure R-1. The respondents have submitted that appointment on compassionate grounds can be considered only in case where the railway servants lost their lives in the course of duty or died in harness while in service before their retirement. In this case, ex-employee expired on 15.04.2005 i.e. after his removal from service with effect from 20.03.2003 and there is no provision to give compassionate appointment to the wards of removed employees. Hence, the applicant is not entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds. With regard to the settlement dues, the respondents have submitted that the removed employees can get only provident fund amount at their credit, Central Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme amount and leave salary but not family pension. The deceased husband of the applicant did not have any leave at his credit and therefore, he is not entitled for encashment of leave salary. No claim forms have been submitted either by the ex-employee while he was alive or by his family members after his death. Therefore, a letter dated 14.07.2008 (Annexure R-2) has been sent to the applicant to submit letter of authority -cum- hand receipt forms duly furnishing the bank account number etc. in order to release the available provident fund and Group Insurance Scheme amounts.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is an illiterate and she was not aware that her husband had been removed from service. According to him, no removal order was served on the applicant's husband. He also invited my attention to the respondents' statement in para 5 of the reply that the applicant produced private medical certificates for the period after his removal till his death. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the applicant, removal itself was not in order as no opportunity was given to the applicant to represent his case. He also pleaded that the applicant deserves to be considered for payment of compassionate allowance, if not family pension, since there have been cases where dependents of removed / dismissed employees have also been granted compassionate allowance basing on the merits of the case under Rule 65 of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that it is not a fit case for consideration for either family pension or compassionate allowance because the very fact that the applicant produced private medical certificates for the period after the removal of her husband till his death shows that she was aware of his removal and the said removal order has not been challenged either by way of appeal or through an O.A. Therefore, it has attained finality. As the wife of a railway employee, she is not eligible for family pension or for compassionate appointment.
5. It is seen from the material papers furnished by the respondents that the deceased husband of the applicant is a habitual absentee and the disciplinary authority had taken action against him for his continued unauthorized absence. An inquiry officer was appointed to conduct the inquiry. It is seen from the removal order that Annexure R-1, a copy of which along with inquiry officer's report was made available to the applicant's husband on 01.12.2002 and the same was acknowledged by him on 02.12.2002. But, he did not submit any representation against the inquiry officer's report. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of the inquiry officer and held that the articles of charges as proved and imposed the penalty of removal from service. However, Sri M. Nageswara Rao, the deceased husband of the applicant did not file any appeal against his removal order. Therefore, he has accepted the punishment of removal. Rules do not provide for payment of family pension to the dependents of removed/ dismissed government servants. Therefore, the applicant is not eligible for family pension under the Rules. As regards other dues, the applicant has already been instructed by the respondents to file her claim. Once the claim is made, the respondents will no doubt pass appropriate orders and sanction whatever amount is due to her.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant pleaded for sanction of compassionate allowance to the applicant. I find that this is not the prayer in this O.A. However, the applicant is at liberty to make a representation to the respondents for payment of compassionate allowance considering the fact that her husband had been a regular employee and had earned two promotions and the facts and circumstances of the case of the family. On receipt of such representation, the respondents will no doubt consider the case in accordance with the Rule 65 of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993.
7. O.A. is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
(R. SANTHANAM) MEMBER (Admn) Dated this the 29th day of December, 2008 (Dictated in Open Court)