Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
G Jayalakshimi vs M/O Railways on 20 July, 2023
1ofé CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MADRAS BENCH O.A. No. 310/00 493 of 2021 DATED THIS 20° DAY THE THURSDAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND TWENTY THREE two PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SMT. MANJULA DAS, MEMBER (J) Smt, G.Jayalakshimi, W/o.Late C.Govindarajulu, Ex.Tech. IIJ/Signal/SA No.43, Gowrams Garden, Manthope, Panchayat Office, Coimbatore South, Podnur, Coimbatore -- 641 023. ...Applicant (By Advocate: M/s. Ratio Legis) Vs Union of India represented by The General Manager, Southern Railway, Park town, Chennai 600 003. The Divisional Personnel Officer, Salem Division, Southern Railway, Salem -- 636 005. bes Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. D. Hariprasad) CA 20f6 GRAL ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Smt. Manjula Das, Member (J)) The applicant has filed this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal's Act 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
"to call for the records related to the service of late C. Govindarajulu in the Railway service and the impugned order No. SA/P.579/Sett./Court cases dated 24.11.2020 and to quash the same and further to direct the respondents to extend the benefit of Family Pension to the applicant effective from 4.9.2012 in terms of Rule 75 of the Pension Rules with 18% interest and to pass such other order/orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper and thus to render justice,"'
2. The brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicant in nutshell are as follows:
The applicant submits that she is the widow of late C. Govindarajulu who while working as a Technician, Grade III, in the Signal & Telecommunication Branch at Salem Town in Salem Division in Southern Railway, was found missing since 4.9.2012 and after waiting for a reasonable period, the applicant had lodged a complaint with the Police authorities on 09.02.2018 and to that effect obtained a First Information Report from them.
The where-abouts of the applicant's husband is still unknown. After waiting for @ 3 0f6 a reasonable time, on 3.9.2018 a request was made to the 2™ respondent for grant of family pension and other settlement dues. Since there was no reply from the respondents, therefore, the applicant had preferred an Original Application No. O.A.No.310/00049/2020, which was disposed of at the admission stage by the Tribunal vide its order dated 21.12.2019 and in compliance of the order of the Tribunal, the impugned order No.SA/P.579/Sett/Court cases dated 24.11.2020 is passed rejecting the claim of the applicant. Being aggrieved, the applicant filed the instant OA seeking the aforesaid relief.
3. The respondents have filed reply contesting the OA.
The respondents have contended that the husband of the applicant while working as Technician Grade II/Signal/Salem was absent from 24.11.2004 to 31.3.2006, from 1.6.2006 to 31.1.2007, from 1.4.2007 to 30.9.2007, from 1.11.2010 to 20.3.2011 and from 11.5.2012 to 24.10.2014 upto removal from service. Due to the unauthorised absence of the applicant's husband, he was issued with Charge Sheet for major penalty under Railways Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1968 and he was removed from service without any benefits by disciplinary authority with effect from 24.10.2014 and police complaint was lodged on 9.2.2018, after a lapse of three years, three months and 15 days. It is further submitted by the respondents that family pension to the family of the missing employee / pensioner may be sanctioned after a period of six months y 4of6 from the date of registration of an FIR with the police authorities. Wherever the employee was removed from service, he is not eligible for Pension & Gratuity as per Rule 65 of Railway Service (Pension) Rules 1933. It is further submitted by the respondents whenever the employees and their family members are approaching Welfare Inspectors, their grievances are being attended regularly. The husband of the applicant is not at all railway employees since he was removed from service without any benefits hence, the applicant is not eligible for Family Pension under Rule 75 of Railway Services (Pension) Rules 1993. Hence they prayed for dismissal of the O.A.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that penalty of removal on applicant's husband is consequence of unauthorized absence and the applicant's husband was found missing and, therefore, in terms of Rule 65 of the Railway Pension Rules, 1993 and the law settled in Civil Appeal No, 2111 of 2009, the applicant should be sanctioned with family pension as per Rule 75 (2) (C) of the Railway Service Pension Rules, 1993 and the case of the applicant is squarely applicable to the said proviso and decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court and, hence, the impugned order dated 24.11.2020 is liable to ke quashed ard set aside and O.A. to be allowed.
5. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that though the applicants are residing at Salem and they lodged F.LR. in Coimbatore on 09.02.2018 after a lapse of nearly 4 years from the date of
-) 5 of6 alleged missing of the employee. He has further drawn my attention to 0.0 No. SA/129/2020/S &T dated issued by the Divisional Office, Personnel Branch, Salem which is annexed as Annexure R2 whereby the Disciplinary Authority passed an order removing the employee from the service and further drawn my attention to the cases where Compassionate Allowance to be granted as Annexure R3. As the employee was already removed from service before the FIR lodged therefore he is not entitled to any relief and the OA be dismissed accordingly.
6, Heard Learned Counsel for applicant and Learned Counsel Mr. D. Hariprasad for respondent. Perused the records and relevant documents.
7. The main factor to be decided in the instant case is whether the applicant is a deserving candidate for grant of compassionate allowance.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits at this stage that since the applicant's husband was removed from service due to unauthorized service and therefore the applicant is entitled for compassionate allowance notionally till the date family pension is being granted as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and applicant would be satisfied if the applicant is given liberty to make a comprehensive representation within a stipulated period and after receipt of the same, respondents may give an opportunity of being heard along with a legal assistant to present her and consider and dispose of her case within a time frame, "SPRATT mh SSE: . oe poe costs.
6o0f6
9. In view of above, ends of justice would be met if the O.A. is disposed of by directing the applicant to make a comprehensive representation citing the rule position as well the legal position with regard to her claim for compassionate allowance notionally within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order and upon receipt of the same, the respondents are - directed to give an opportunity to the applicant of being heard personally or through a legal assistance and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months thereafter.
10. Ordered accordingly.
11. With the above direction, the O.A. is accordingly disposed of. No