Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Y. Venkataramana Reddy vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 10 January, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003(2)ALD47, 2003(2)ALT63, 2003 LAB. I. C. 2360, (2003) 5 ALLINDCAS 81 (AP), (2003) 2 ANDHLD 47, (2003) 2 ANDH LT 63, (2003) 2 LAB LN 474
Author: Bilal Nazki
Bench: Bilal Nazki
JUDGMENT Bilal Nazki, J.
1. The petitioner was removed from service on charge of unauthorised absence by an order dated 28-2-1974. His appeal was disposed of on 10-7-1974 confirming the penalty. Thereafter the petitioner made a representation to the Minister of Railways on 21-7-2000 seeking compassionate allowance. This was rejected by an order dated 6-2-2001. Thereafter he filed the O.A. before the Tribunal which was dismissed. Hence the writ petition seeking quashing of the order of Minister dated 6-2-2001.
2. The order which was communicated to the petitioner reads as under:
"With reference to your representation cited, it is advised that on the charge of unauthorised absence, the penalty of removal from service with effect from 28-2-1974 was imposed on you by the Divisional Mechanical Engineer/L/Vijayawada. Your appeal was also disposed of on 10-7-1974 by confirming the said penalty.
After a lapse of 26 years, you have now made a representation for grant of pension and gratuity stating that you are aged 66 years and have to maintain a large family.
Inasmuch as you were removed from service as a measure of penalty, you are not entitled for pension or gratuity. As soon as your appeal is disposed of by the appellate authority, you would have submitted a representation to the disciplinary authority requesting for grant of compassionate allowance as admissible under the provision of the Manual of Railway Pension Rules, 1950. As your case is of more than 26 years old, no action can be taken at this distant date."
The petitioner has placed reliance on some judgments of this Court as well as other High Courts. He seeks pension on the strength of Rule 65 of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 and a Circular issued on the basis of these rules in the year 1995. This Rule was incorporated in 1993 and the Circular was issued in the year 1995. The petitioner was removed from service in the year 1974 but he made representation to the Minister concerned only in the year 2000. Although the plea of laches was taken before the Tribunal which was accepted by the Tribunal we are not disposing of the matter on the basis of laches.
3. It is clear from the Rules that Rule 65 is not retrospective in operation but prospective. Rule 6 in Chapter-II of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 lays down that:
"Any claim to pension or family pension shall be regulated by the provisions of these Rules in force at the time when a railway servant retires or is retired or is discharged or is allowed to resign from service or dies, as the case may be."
Although in Rule 6 it is made clear that the claim to pension or family pension shall be regulated by the provisions of the Rules in force at the time when the railway servant retires or is retired or is discharged or is allowed to resign from service or dies, but in our view this would apply to the cases of dismissals and removals as well. Removal or dismissal is by way of punishment for misconduct and the persons dismissed or removed from service could not be on better footing than those who retired normally. Therefore, in our view the 1993 Rules are not at all applicable to the petitioner.
4. For these reasons, we do not find merit in the Writ Petition which is accordingly dismissed.