Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Smt Munni Devi vs General Manager N C Rly on 7 February, 2023
Open Court
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad
This the 07th day of February, 2023
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Original Application No. 22 of 2023
Smt. Munni Devi, aged about 50 years W/o Late Munna Lal R/o Village
Talaramanna, Kothipura, Post - Baruasagar, District - Jhansi.
........... APPLICANT
By Advocate: Shri A D Singh
Versus
1. Union of India through its General Manager, North Central Railway,
Subedarganj, Allahabad.
2. Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway, Jhansi.
3. Divisional Railway Manager (P), North Central Railway, Jhansi.
4. Finance Advisor & Chief Accounts Officer, Divisional Railway
Manager, North Central Subedarganj, Allahabad.
5. Assistant Divisional Engineer, (Est.) North Central Railway, Lalitpur.
..........RESPONDENTS
By Advocate: Shri Subhash Chandra Mishra.
ORDER
Shri A D Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Subhash Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents, are present.
2. The instant original application has been filed by the applicant seeking following relief:
(i) quash the order dated 27.12.2016 (Annexure A-1) passed by respondent no. 3 in Compilation No. I.
(ii) Direct the respondents to make the payment of Provident Fund (PF) and GIS with 18% interest per annum to the applicant from the date of entitlement to the date of actual payment is beign made to the applicant.
(iii) Direct the respondents to pay the compassionate allowances as per rules 65 of Railway Service (Pension) Rules 1993 to the applicant along with arrear to the applicant from the date of termination to the date of actual payment is being made to the applicant along with 18% interest per annum upon the said arrear to the applicant.2
(iv) Grant such other relief as the applicant might be found entitled to, in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(v) Allow the original application with cost of the proceeding in favour of the applicant from the respondents."
3. The brief facts of the case as have been narrated in the original application are that the husband of the applicant was a permanent employee of the respondents till he got terminated on 15.02.1985. The applicant is aggrieved from the fact that she has not been accrued the benefit of provident fund and GIS of her husband. By way of the instant original application, the applicant has challenged the order dated 27.12.2016 seeking a direction the respondents to make the payment of Provident Fund and GIS with 18% interest per annum to her from the date of entitlement to the date of actual payment being made. Applicant has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to pay the compassionate allowances as per rules 65 of the Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993 to her along with arrear from the date of termination to the date of actual payment at the rate of 18% interest.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. Disclosing a brief history of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the husband of the applicant namely Munna Lal was a permanent employee of the respondents' organization. His services were terminated on 15.02.1985 on the ground of unauthorized absence from duty. The husband of the applicant passed away on 04.07.2013 after a prolonged illness. However, the benefit of provident fund and GIS of the deceased government employee has not been provided to the applicant yet. Seeking the redressal of her grievance, applicant preferred a representation dated 12.10.2013 before the respondents. In reply to the said representation, respondents addressed a letter dated 03.12.2013 to the applicant asking for the requisite documents which were necessary for making the desired payment. Learned counsel further submits that the Employee and Welfare Inspector, Jhansi also sent a letter dated 18.12.2013 to the applicant asking for the requisite documents from her for the purpose of making the desired payment.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that instead of searching their own records, the respondents have been asking the applicant to furnish all the records which are required to make the payment of Provident Fund and GIS. He submits that applicant is widow and an illiterate person and she is not having any service records of her husband. Moreover, the onus of keeping the service records of its employees rests entirely upon the respondents and in the instant case, asking the service records of one of its employees from his widow speaks for the unprofessional conduct of the respondents. Learned counsel submits that applicant is undergoing severe financial and metal hardship 3 due to the fact that rightful dues of her deceased husband have not been paid to her till date and respondents are responsible for her suffering.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that respondents have passed the impugned order dated 27.12.2016 without application of mind and against the statutory rules. Rejecting such a plea on the ground that the claim of Provident Fund and GIS cannot be accorded being old matters of which no service records is available with them is very unjustifiable and arbitrary. Learned counsel for the applicant draws strength from statutory provisions under Rule 65(1)(2) of the Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant further relies upon the judgment dated 15.12.2008 passed by Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 17992 of 2000 in the case of Mohammad Abdul Samad Vs. S.C. Railway represented by Sikandarabad and Others submitting that in the instant case, the Hon'ble Court decided the similar and identical controversy by considering Rule 65 of the Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993 as well as with regard to granting the benefit of compassionate allowances to the similarly situated person.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently denies the claim of the applicant and by way of his counter affidavit, he submits that applicant has been asked for the requisite documents many times however, she has failed to provide the same. Moreover, the husband of the applicant was appointed back in the year 1978 and he worked as Gangman at Babina Station from 1978 to 1984. Therefore, he submits that the case records are more than 38 years old and as such it is very difficult for the respondents' authorities to trace the same.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents further draws my attention to Para 69 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 submitting that the relevant paragraph clearly states that in case of a railway servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these rules before completing qualifying service of ten years, the amount of service gratuity shall be calculated at the rate of half month's emoluments for every completed six monthly period of service. He further submits that GIS Scheme came into picture in the year 1982 and as per rule 69(2) of the Railway Pension Rules, 1993 the qualifying service for pension is 10 years whereas for gratuity the qualifying service is 5 years as per Rule 70 of the same, therefore the applicant was not liable for pension, gratuity and compassionate appointment.
11. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records and have also gone through the judgment as have been referred to.
412. Since it is an admitted fact that the applicant's husband was an employee of the respondents' organization where he worked from the year 1978 to 1984 and after that, his services were terminated. Documents annexed with the application also reveal that process for payment of Provident Fund and GIS has also been started by the department. Observation which was recorded by the respondents in the impugned order regarding non-supply of the records / other documents by the applicant to the department is certainly not tenable as applicant whose husband had died will not be in a position to collect the aforesaid documents. All the relevant service documents of the deceased husband of the applicant which are required for payment of terminal dues should have been in the custody of the respondents. Therefore, plea taken by the respondents contrary to this cannot be accepted. Accordingly, as regards to the first relief clause of the instant original application, respondents' order dated 27.12.2016 is hereby set aside. Respondents are directed to make the full payment of Provident Fund (PF) and GIS along with 6% simple interest to the applicant from the date of entitlement to the date of actual payment made to her.
13. As regards to the relief clause no. III whereby applicant has sought a direction to the respondents to pay the compassionate allowances as per Rule 65 of Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993 to the applicant along with arrear to the applicant, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn strength from the judgment dated 15.12.2008 passed by Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 17992 of 2000 in the case of Mohammad Abdul Samad Vs. S.C. Railway represented by Sikandarabad and Others. However, a perusal of the said judgment also reveals that the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh has also taken cognizance of the fact that the benefit of compassionate allowances should not be accorded in accordance with the discretion of the competent authority and not merely on sympathetic grounds. For the sake of clarity, relevant paragraphs of the above judgments are quoted below:
" 19. This Court would not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India merely on sympathetic grounds. It is only when there exists a legal right conferred on him under a provision having the force of law, and a corresponding legal duty is cast on the authorities concerned, would this Court be justified in issuing a mandamus. In this case the legal right, which the petitioner has, is referable to Rule 65 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 and Paragraphs 309 and 310 of the Manual of Railway Pension Rules, 1950. In W.P. No. 4800 of 2000 dated 20-7-2003 this Court has specifically held that the Circular of the Railways issued in December, 1995 read with Rule 65 would undoubtedly confer the right on dismissed employees also to seek compassionate allowance subject to their satisfying the Competent Authority that it is a fit case for grant of compassionate allowance. The 5 relief now granted in this writ petition is not on sympathetic grounds, but as the petitioner has a legal right to have his case considered in accordance with Paragraphs 309 and 310 of the Manual of Railway Pension Rules, 1950.
20. In cases where its directions are repeatedly ignored, this Court would be justified in issuing a mandamus directing the authorities concerned to grant the relief sought for. The present case does not necessitate issuing of any such directions. The power, conferred under Paragraphs 309 and 310 of the Manual of Railway Pension Rules, 1950, is to be exercised by the Competent Authority in its discretion. Grant of compassionate allowance is more an exception than the norm. Several factors have to be taken into consideration by the Competent Authority in deciding as to whether the benefit of compassionate allowance should or should not be extended to an employee who is removed from service, more so, on the grounds of pilferage and attempt to sell railway property to a habitual receiver of stolen property. I see no reason to issue a mandamus to the respondents to grant compassionate allowance to the petitioner herein."
14. In view of above, I am of the considered opinion that as far as the relief clause no. III is concerned, respondents are hereby directed to re-consider the request of the applicant for granting the benefit of compassionate allowance in accordance with the statutory provisions governing the subject matter and also in light of the deliberations which have been quoted in the instant judgment.
15. Accordingly, the instant original application is partly allowed. Respondents are hereby directed to comply with the above directions within three months from the date of this order.
16. All associated MAs stand disposed of accordingly.
17. No costs.
(Justice Om Prakash VII) Member (Judicial) (Ritu Raj)