Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh

Avtar Singh vs M/O Railways on 26 December, 2025

                                                               ​1​            ​(O.A.No.060/465/2024)​


                                  ​CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL​
                                          ​CHANDIGARH BENCH​
                                                 ​O.A.No.060/465/2024​

                                   ​Chandigarh, the 26​​th​ ​day of December, 2025​

                         ​ ORAM:​
                         C
                          ​HON'BLE MR. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J)​

​Avtar​ ​Singh,​ ​aged​ ​62​ ​years,​ ​s/o​ ​Sadhu​ ​Singh,​ ​resident​ ​of​ ​Aman​​Valley​ ​Sahib​ ​Bandgi​ ​Dera,​ ​Icche​ ​Wal​ ​Road,​ ​Ferozepur​ ​City,​ ​District​ ​Ferozepur,​ ​Punjab.​ ​...Applicant​ ​(By Advocate: Mr. Nagar Singh)​ ​VERSUS​ ​1.​ ​Union​ ​of​ ​India​ ​through​ ​its​ ​Secretary,​ ​Ministry​ ​of​ ​Railway,​ ​Northern​ ​Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi.​ ​2.​ ​The​ ​General​ ​Manager​ ​(Railway),​ ​Northern​ ​Railway,​ ​Baroda​ ​House,​ ​New Delhi.​ ​3.​ ​The​ ​Divisional​ ​Manager​ ​(Railway),​ ​Northern​ ​Railway,​ ​Moradabad,​ ​(U.P.).​ ​4.​​The​​Divisional​​Manager​​(Railway),​​Northern​​Railway,​​Ferozepur​​Cantt.​ ​District Ferozepur, Punjab.​ ​...Respondents​ ​(By Advocate: Ms. Komal Preet Chauhan)​ ​ R D E R​ O ​Per: RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J):​ ​1.​ ​The​ ​present​ ​Original​ ​Application​ ​filed​ ​under​ ​Section​ ​19​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Administrative​ ​Tribunals​​Act,​​1985​​is​​preferred​​by​​the​​applicant​​seeking​ ​relief​ ​for​ ​releasing​ ​his​ ​pension​ ​benefits​ ​as​ ​claimed​ ​in​ ​representations​ ​and legal notices as per law.​ ​2.​ ​Facts​ ​of​ ​the​ ​case​ ​in​ ​brief​ ​are​ ​as​ ​follows.​ ​The​ ​applicant​ ​was​ ​appointed​ ​in​ ​Northern​ ​Railway​ ​on​ ​06.06.1986​ ​as​ ​Khalasi​ ​at​ ​O/o​ ​DRM,​ ​Ferozepur​​under​​TI​​Safety,​​District​​Ferozepur,​​Punjab.​​During​​the​​course​ ​of​ ​his​ ​service,​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​got​ ​successive​ ​promotions.​ ​He​ ​was​ ​promoted​ ​as​ ​Clerk​ ​on​ ​16.07.1997​ ​and​ ​thereafter​ ​promoted​ ​to​​the​​post​ 2026.01.07 ​of Senior Clerk in 'T' Branch.​ SHIVAM 14:04:16 +05'30' ​2​ ​(O.A.No.060/465/2024)​ ​3.​ ​While​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​was​ ​in​ ​service,​ ​a​ ​criminal​ ​case​ ​bearing​ ​R.C.​ ​No.​ ​34​ ​dated​​10.09.2001​​was​​registered​​against​​him​​and​​other​​officials​ ​by​​CBI/ACB,​​Chandigarh,​​under​​Sections​​120-B,​​420,​​467,​​468​​IPC​​and​ ​Sections​ ​13(1)(d)​ ​read​ ​with​ ​13(2)​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Prevention​ ​of​ ​Corruption​ ​Act,​ ​1988.​ ​On​ ​14.04.2004,​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​was​ ​transferred​ ​from​ ​DRM​ ​Office,​ ​Ferozepur​ ​to​ ​DRM​ ​Office,​ ​Moradabad,​ ​where​ ​he​ ​was​ ​posted​ ​as​ ​Senior​ ​Clerk​ ​in​ ​the​ ​Personnel​ ​Branch​ ​and​ ​continued​​to​​work​​there​​till​​the​​year​ ​2009.​ ​4.​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​CBI​ ​Court​ ​convicted​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​and​ ​other​ ​co-accused​ ​vide​ ​judgment​ ​dated​ ​23.03.2009.​ ​Aggrieved​ ​by​ ​the​ ​conviction​ ​and​ ​sentence,​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​preferred​ ​Criminal​ ​Appeal​ ​No.​ ​CRA-S-939-SB-2009​​before​​the​​Hon'ble​​Punjab​​and​​Haryana​​High​​Court.​ ​The​ ​applicant​ ​was​ ​granted​ ​bail​ ​on​ ​16.04.2009,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​said​ ​criminal​ ​appeal is stated to be still pending adjudication.​ ​5.​ ​During​ ​the​ ​pendency​ ​of​ ​the​ ​criminal​ ​appeal,​ ​the​ ​Office​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Divisional​​Railway​​Manager,​​Moradabad,​​passed​​an​​ex​​parte​​order​​dated​ ​06.05.2009,​​dismissing​​the​​applicant​​from​​service.​​The​​applicant​​asserts​ ​that​ ​after​ ​his​ ​dismissal,​ ​he​ ​made​ ​repeated​ ​personal​ ​requests​ ​and​ ​submitted​​several​​representations​​to​​the​​respondent​​authorities​​seeking​ ​redressal​ ​of​ ​his​ ​grievance​ ​and​ ​release​ ​of​ ​his​ ​pensionary​ ​benefits,​ ​however, no response was received from the respondents.​ ​6.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​submitted​ ​by​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​that​ ​his​ ​date​ ​of​ ​birth​ ​is​ ​06.04.1962,​ ​and​ ​he​ ​would​ ​have​ ​normally​ ​superannuated​ ​from​ ​service​ ​on​​30.04.2022.​​It​​is​​the​​specific​​case​​of​​the​​applicant​​that​​he​​was​​never​ ​issued​​any​​formal​​intimation​​or​​order​​regarding​​retirement​​or​​settlement​ ​of pensionary benefits.​ ​7.​ ​The​​applicant​​submits​​that​​owing​​to​​the​​prolonged​​pendency​​of​​his​ ​criminal​ ​appeal,​ ​deteriorating​ ​health​ ​condition​ ​including​ ​cardiac​ ​ailments,​ ​and​ ​complete​ ​lack​ ​of​ ​financial​ ​support,​ ​he​ ​has​ ​been​ ​facing​ 2026.01.07 ​acute financial hardship affecting his livelihood and that of his family.​ SHIVAM 14:04:16 +05'30' ​3​ ​(O.A.No.060/465/2024)​ ​8.​ ​In​ ​order​ ​to​ ​seek​ ​redressal,​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​submitted​ ​representations​ ​dated​ ​06.10.2023​ ​and​ ​09.10.2023​ ​to​ ​the​ ​respondents,​ ​followed​ ​by​ ​legal​ ​notices​ ​dated​ ​21.11.2023​ ​and​ ​25.01.2024,​ ​seeking​ ​release​ ​of​ ​pensionary​ ​benefits​ ​in​ ​accordance​ ​with​ ​law.​ ​Despite​​lapse​​of​ ​considerable​ ​time,​ ​no​ ​reply​ ​was​ ​furnished​ ​nor​ ​was​ ​any​ ​decision​ ​communicated by the respondents.​ ​9.​ ​Learned​ ​counsel​ ​for​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​has​ ​asserted​​that​​the​​applicant​ ​was​ ​dismissed​ ​from​ ​service​ ​by​ ​an​ ​ex​ ​parte​ ​order​ ​dated​ ​06.05.2009,​ ​passed​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Divisional​ ​Railway​ ​Manager,​ ​Moradabad,​ ​without​ ​addressing​ ​the​ ​pendency​ ​of​ ​the​ ​criminal​ ​appeal​ ​and​ ​without​ ​affording​ ​effective​ ​consideration​ ​of​ ​his​ ​service​ ​career​ ​and​ ​subsequent​ ​developments,​ ​and​ ​despite​ ​repeated​ ​representations​ ​and​ ​personal​ ​requests,​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​failed​ ​to​ ​consider​ ​or​ ​decide​ ​the​ ​applicant's​ ​claim​ ​for​ ​pensionary​ ​benefits,​ ​thereby​ ​acting​​arbitrarily​​and​​in​​violation​ ​of administrative fairness.​ ​10.​ ​It​​is​​further​​asserted​​by​​learned​​counsel​​for​​the​​applicant​​that​​the​ ​applicant​ ​had​ ​a​ ​definite​ ​date​ ​of​ ​superannuation​​(30.04.2022)​​based​​on​ ​his​ ​date​ ​of​ ​birth,​ ​yet​ ​no​​retirement-related​​formalities,​​pension​​papers,​ ​or​ ​settlement​ ​of​ ​dues​ ​were​ ​ever​​processed​​or​​communicated​​to​​him.​​It​ ​is​​contended​​by​​the​​applicant​​that​​the​​criminal​​appeal​​against​​conviction​ ​is​ ​still​ ​pending​ ​before​ ​the​ ​Hon'ble​​Punjab​​and​​Haryana​​High​​Court,​​and​ ​the​ ​dismissal​ ​order​ ​was​ ​passed​ ​during​ ​pendency​ ​of​ ​appellate​ ​proceedings,​ ​which​ ​has​ ​a​ ​direct​ ​bearing​ ​on​ ​service​ ​and​ ​pensionary​ ​consequences.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​further​ ​contended​ ​that​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​failed​ ​to​ ​respond​ ​to​ ​representations​ ​and​ ​legal​ ​notices​ ​dated​ ​21.11.2023​ ​and​ ​25.01.2024, reflecting administrative inaction.​ ​11.​ ​Learned​ ​counsel​ ​for​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​has​ ​asserted​​that​​the​​applicant​ ​is​ ​suffering​ ​from​ ​serious​ ​health​ ​ailments,​ ​including​ ​heart-related​ ​problems,​ ​and​ ​is​ ​facing​ ​extreme​ ​financial​ ​distress,​ ​making​ ​denial​ ​of​ 2026.01.07 ​pensionary​ ​benefits​ ​unjust,​ ​harsh,​ ​and​ ​disproportionate.​ ​Learned​ SHIVAM 14:04:16 +05'30' ​4​ ​(O.A.No.060/465/2024)​ ​counsel​ ​for​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​further​ ​contends​ ​that​ ​pension​ ​is​ ​not​ ​a​ ​bounty​​but​​a​​deferred​​right,​​and​​the​​non-consideration​​of​​the​​applicant's​ ​entitlement​ ​to​ ​pensionary​ ​benefits​ ​violates​ ​settled​ ​principles​ ​of​ ​service​ ​jurisprudence and fairness.​ ​12.​ ​The​ ​respondents​ ​have​ ​contested​ ​the​ ​claim​ ​of​ ​the​ ​applicant.​ ​The​ ​respondents​​contend​​that​​the​​applicant,​​while​​working​​as​​Senior​​Clerk​​in​ ​the​ ​Personnel​ ​Branch​ ​under​ ​Respondent​ ​No.3,​ ​was​ ​convicted​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Court​​of​​Special​​Judge,​​CBI,​​Patiala,​​vide​​judgment​​dated​​23.03.2009​​in​ ​a​ ​criminal​ ​case​ ​registered​ ​under​ ​Sections​ ​120-B​ ​read​ ​with​ ​420,​ ​467,​ ​468,​ ​471​ ​IPC​ ​and​ ​Section​ ​13(1)(d)​ ​read​ ​with​ ​Section​ ​13(2)​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Prevention​ ​of​ ​Corruption​ ​Act,​ ​1988.​ ​Consequent​ ​upon​ ​such​ ​conviction,​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​was​ ​dismissed​ ​from​ ​service​​vide​​order​​dated​​06.05.2009,​ ​and​ ​therefore,​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​ceased​ ​to​ ​be​ ​a​ ​railway​ ​servant​ ​and​ ​is​ ​not​ ​entitled to service benefits as claimed.​ ​13.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​submitted​ ​by​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​that​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​has​ ​approached​ ​the​ ​Tribunal​ ​seeking​​release​​of​​pensionary​​benefits​​and,​​by​ ​way​​of​​interim​​relief,​​appointment​​on​​an​​ex-gratia​​post​​during​​pendency​ ​of​ ​the​ ​OA.​ ​The​ ​respondents​ ​submit​ ​that​ ​such​ ​reliefs​ ​are​ ​not​ ​legally​ ​tenable​ ​in​ ​view​ ​of​ ​the​ ​applicant's​ ​dismissal​ ​from​ ​service​ ​on​ ​account​ ​of​ ​conviction in a criminal case involving moral turpitude and corruption.​ ​14.​ ​The​ ​respondents​ ​assert​ ​that​ ​the​​applicant​​had​​earlier​​approached​ ​the​ ​Tribunal​ ​by​ ​filing​ ​an​ ​OA​ ​seeking​ ​reinstatement​ ​in​ ​service​ ​on​ ​parity​ ​with​​a​​co-convict,​​namely​​Raj​​Kumar,​​who​​allegedly​​continues​​in​​service​ ​despite​​the​​same​​conviction​​dated​​23.03.2009.​​The​​respondents​​submit​ ​that​ ​the​ ​said​ ​proceedings​ ​involved​ ​an​ ​application​ ​for​ ​condonation​ ​of​ ​delay​ ​(M.A.​ ​No.113/2020),​ ​which​ ​was​ ​dismissed​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Tribunal​ ​vide​ ​order​ ​dated​ ​18.03.2024.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​further​ ​contended​ ​that​ ​although​ ​the​ ​applicant​​filed​​M.A.​​No.2016/2024​​for​​restoration,​​which​​was​​disposed​​of​ ​on​ ​22.08.2024,​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​has​ ​deliberately​ ​concealed​​these​​material​ 2026.01.07 ​facts​ ​from​ ​the​ ​present​ ​proceedings.​ ​Copies​ ​of​ ​the​ ​orders​ ​dated​ SHIVAM 14:04:16 +05'30' ​5​ ​(O.A.No.060/465/2024)​ ​18.03.2024​ ​and​ ​22.08.2024​ ​have​ ​been​ ​placed​ ​on​ ​record​ ​as​ ​Annexure​ ​R-1 and R-2.​ ​15.​ ​The​ ​respondents​ ​contend​ ​that​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​has​ ​also​ ​suppressed​ ​the​​fact​​that​​his​​claim​​for​​reinstatement​​is​​pending​​before​​the​​Allahabad​ ​Bench​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Tribunal.​ ​Learned​ ​counsel​ ​for​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​has​ ​contended​ ​that​ ​the​ ​pendency​ ​of​ ​parallel​ ​proceedings​ ​disentitles​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​from​ ​any​ ​relief​ ​in​ ​the​ ​present​ ​OA.​ ​Placing​ ​reliance​ ​on​ ​the​ ​judgment​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Hon'ble​ ​Supreme​ ​Court​ ​in​ ​S.P.​ ​Chengalvaraya​ ​Naidu​ ​(dead)​ ​by​ ​LRs​ ​vs.​ ​Jagannath​ ​(dead)​ ​by​ ​LRs​​,​ ​AIR​ ​1994​ ​SC​ ​853,​ ​the​ ​respondents​​submit​​that​​suppression​​of​​material​​facts​​amounts​​to​​fraud​ ​on​ ​the​ ​Court.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​argued​ ​that​ ​a​ ​litigant​ ​who​ ​does​ ​not​ ​approach​ ​the​ ​Court​​with​​clean​​hands​​is​​not​​entitled​​to​​any​​relief​​and​​such​​proceedings​ ​are liable to be dismissed at the threshold.​ ​16.​ ​The​​applicant​​has​​contested​​the​​submissions​​of​​the​​respondents​​in​ ​rejoinder,​​whereby​​it​​is​​asserted​​that​​the​​applicant​​is​​a​​senior​​citizen​​and​ ​a​ ​former​ ​employee​ ​of​ ​the​ ​respondents,​ ​who​ ​has​ ​been​ ​unfairly​ ​and​ ​unjustly​​victimised.​​It​​is​​pleaded​​that​​the​​rigid​​stand​​of​​the​​respondents​ ​has resulted in grave hardship to the applicant at an advanced age.​ ​17.​ ​In​​response​​to​​the​​objection​​of​​concealment,​​the​​applicant​​submits​ ​that​ ​the​ ​earlier​ ​OA​ ​filed​ ​before​ ​the​ ​Allahabad​ ​Bench​ ​was​ ​on​ ​a​ ​distinct​ ​and​ ​separate​ ​cause​ ​of​ ​action,​ ​namely,​ ​a​ ​prayer​ ​for​ ​reinstatement​ ​on​ ​parity​​with​​a​​co-convict​​(Raj​​Kumar),​​whereas​​the​​present​​OA​​has​​been​ ​filed​ ​with​ ​the​ ​limited​ ​and​ ​independent​ ​prayer​ ​for​ ​release​ ​of​​pensionary​ ​benefits as per law.​ ​18.​ ​The​ ​applicant​ ​specifically​ ​contends​ ​that​ ​he​ ​had​ ​served​ ​legal​ ​notices​ ​dated​ ​21.11.2023​ ​and​ ​25.01.2024​ ​upon​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​seeking​ ​release​ ​of​ ​pensionary​ ​benefits/dues,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​respondents,​ ​in​ ​their​​short​​reply,​​have​​not​​denied​​the​​pendency​​or​​non-payment​​of​​such​ ​pensionary benefits.​ 2026.01.07 SHIVAM 14:04:16 +05'30' ​6​ ​(O.A.No.060/465/2024)​ ​19.​ ​I​ ​have​ ​heard​ ​the​ ​arguments​ ​addressed​ ​by​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​for​ ​both​ ​the​ ​sides​ ​and​ ​carefully​ ​perused​ ​the​​pleadings​​and​​the​​material​​on​ ​record.​ ​20.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​an​ ​admitted​ ​position​ ​that​​the​​applicant​​was​​appointed​​in​​the​ ​Northern​ ​Railway​​on​​06.06.1986,​​was​​promoted​​from​​time​​to​​time,​​and​ ​was​ ​ultimately​​working​​as​​Senior​​Clerk.​​It​​is​​also​​not​​in​​dispute​​that​​he​ ​was​ ​convicted​ ​by​ ​the​ ​CBI​ ​Court​ ​vide​ ​judgment​ ​dated​ ​23.03.2009​ ​and,​ ​consequent​ ​thereto,​ ​was​ ​dismissed​ ​from​ ​service​ ​vide​ ​order​ ​dated​ ​06.05.2009.​ ​The​ ​conviction​ ​appeal​ ​is​ ​stated​ ​to​ ​be​ ​pending​ ​before​ ​the​ ​Hon'ble​​Punjab​​and​​Haryana​​High​​Court.​​The​​limited​​grievance​​raised​​in​ ​the​​present​​OA​​pertains​​to​​non-release​​of​​any​​pensionary​​benefits​​to​​the​ ​applicant​ ​despite​ ​long​ ​years​ ​of​ ​qualifying​ ​service​ ​rendered​ ​prior​ ​to​ ​dismissal​​and​​despite​​repeated​​representations​​and​​legal​​notices​​served​ ​upon the respondents.​ ​21.​ ​Under​ ​the​ ​Railway​ ​Services​ ​(Pension)​ ​Rules,​ ​1993,​ ​dismissal​ ​or​ ​removal​ ​from​ ​service​ ​ordinarily​ ​entails​ ​forfeiture​ ​of​ ​past​ ​service.​ ​However,​ ​Rule​ ​65​ ​of​ ​the​ ​said​ ​Rules​ ​carves​ ​out​ ​a​ ​specific​ ​exception​ ​by​ ​empowering​ ​the​ ​competent​​authority​​to​​grant​​compassionate​​allowance​ ​to​ ​a​ ​dismissed​ ​or​ ​removed​ ​railway​ ​servant,​ ​if​ ​the​ ​case​ ​is​ ​found​ ​deserving​ ​of​ ​special​ ​consideration,​ ​having​ ​regard​ ​to​ ​the​ ​length​ ​of​ ​service,​ ​the​ ​circumstances​ ​leading​ ​to​ ​dismissal,​ ​and​​the​​hardship​​likely​ ​to​ ​be​ ​caused​ ​to​ ​the​ ​employee​ ​and​ ​his​ ​family.​ ​Such​ ​allowance,​ ​though​ ​discretionary,​ ​is​ ​a​ ​statutory​ ​benefit​ ​and​ ​cannot​ ​be​ ​denied​ ​without​ ​consideration by the competent authority.​ ​22.​ ​In​ ​the​ ​present​ ​case,​ ​it​ ​is​ ​evident​ ​that​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​have​ ​not​ ​passed​ ​any​ ​reasoned​ ​order​ ​either​ ​accepting​​or​​rejecting​​the​​applicant's​ ​claim​ ​for​ ​compassionate​ ​allowance.​ ​Mere​ ​dismissal​ ​from​ ​service​ ​on​ ​account​ ​of​ ​conviction​ ​does​ ​not,​ ​by​ ​itself,​ ​absolve​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​of​ ​their​ ​obligation​ ​to​ ​consider​ ​the​ ​case​ ​under​ ​Rule​ ​65​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Railway​ 2026.01.07 ​Services​​(Pension)​​Rules,​​1993.​​The​​applicant​​has​​completed​​substantial​ SHIVAM 14:04:16 +05'30' ​7​ ​(O.A.No.060/465/2024)​ ​length​ ​of​​service​​prior​​to​​dismissal​​and​​is​​now​​a​​senior​​citizen,​​claiming​ ​financial​ ​hardship.​ ​These​ ​aspects​ ​warranted​ ​objective​ ​consideration​ ​by​ ​the competent authority, which admittedly has not been done.​ ​23.​ ​The​ ​discretion​ ​qua​ ​grant​ ​of​​compassionate​​allowance​​vests​​in​​the​ ​competent​​authority​​to​​assess​​the​​facts​​and​​circumstances​​of​​each​​case​ ​under​ ​Rule​ ​65​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Railway​ ​Services​ ​(Pension)​ ​Rules,​ ​1993.​ ​This​ ​Tribunal​ ​is​ ​of​ ​the​ ​considered​ ​opinion​ ​that​ ​the​ ​ends​ ​of​ ​justice​ ​would​ ​be​ ​met​ ​if​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​are​ ​directed​ ​to​​consider​​the​​applicant's​​case​​for​ ​grant​ ​of​ ​compassionate​ ​allowance​ ​strictly​ ​in​ ​accordance​ ​with​ ​the​ ​statutory rules and pass a reasoned and speaking order.​ ​24.​ ​Accordingly,​ ​the​ ​present​ ​Original​ ​Application​ ​is​ ​disposed​ ​of​ ​with​ ​direction​​to​​the​​competent​​authority​​among​​the​​respondents​​to​​consider​ ​the​ ​case​ ​of​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​for​ ​grant​ ​of​ ​compassionate​ ​allowance​ ​under​ ​the​ ​Railway​ ​Services​ ​(Pension)​ ​Rules,​ ​1993,​ ​in​ ​particular​ ​Rule​ ​65,​ ​by​ ​passing​ ​a​ ​reasoned​ ​and​ ​speaking​ ​order​ ​dealing​ ​with​ ​the​ ​contentions​ ​raised​​by​​the​​applicant.​​The​​aforesaid​​exercise​​shall​​be​​completed​​within​ ​four​ ​weeks​ ​from​ ​the​ ​date​ ​of​ ​receipt​ ​of​ ​a​ ​copy​ ​of​ ​this​ ​order.​ ​It​​is​​made​ ​clear​ ​that​ ​this​ ​Tribunal​ ​has​ ​not​ ​expressed​ ​any​ ​opinion​ ​on​​the​​merits​​of​ ​the​ ​applicant's​ ​entitlement​ ​for​ ​compassionate​ ​allowance​ ​or​ ​otherwise,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​competent​ ​authority​ ​shall​ ​take​ ​an​ ​independent​ ​decision​ ​in​ ​accordance with law.​ ​25.​ ​The​ ​OA​ ​is​ ​disposed​ ​of​ ​in​ ​the​ ​above​ ​terms.​ ​Associated​ ​MAs​ ​shall​ ​stand disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.​ ​(RAMESH SINGH THAKUR)​ ​MEMBER (J)​ ​/s/​ 2026.01.07 SHIVAM 14:04:16 +05'30'