THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.25285 OF 1999 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. Aggrieved by the action of the 1st respondent – The Divisional Security Commissioner, S.C. Railway, Guntakol Division, Guntakol, Anantapur District, in not granting the ‘compassionate allowance’ under Rule 65 of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 (for short ‘the Rules’), the present writ petition is filed. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as R.P.F. constable on 18.7.1963 and subsequently promoted as ‘Naik’. The petitioner while working at Guntakol Division, fell sick from 25.3.1986 and taken treatment from Dr.B.L.Narasimhulu, Government Civil Assistant Surgeon, Primary Health Centre, Railway Kodur. In the meanwhile the mother of the petitioner expired on 8.4.1986 and he produced death certificate. The case of the petitioner is that he absented from duty, due to the above reasons. The 1st respondent, issued charge sheet dated 23.4.1986 and further by invoking the provisions under Rule 47B of RPF Rules, 1959 issued show cause notice on 12.5.1986 proposing the penalty of removal from service. Subsequently by order dated 27.5.1986, he was removed from service. The appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected as time barred vide proceedings dated 10.3.1987. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.18215/1987 and this court by order dated 22.6.1990, directed the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal within three moths. It is further alleged that the appellate authority without considering the death certificate produced by the petitioner, rejected the appeal and further though he filed revision, there was no reply. As the petitioner is unable to maintain his filed, filed a representation 22.7.1998 to grant compassionate allowance under Section 65 of the Rules and the same is not considered till date. The further case of the petitioner is that in similar circumstances, the respondents granted compassionate allowance to two individuals by names M.Koteswara Rao and A.D. Kabir, who filed writ petitions before this court in W.P.Nos.17475/1993 and 4688/1994 respectively. Therefore, the petitioner seeks similar treatment by granting compassionate allowance. 4. The respondents filed counter affidavit and at paragraph no.13 disputed the filing of the representation on 22.7.1998. However, while denying the other averments made by the petitioner in the writ affidavit, sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. From the above, it could be seen that the petitioner was removed from service with effect from 27.5.1986 vide Divisional Order No.73/86 dated 27.5.1986 and the appeal filed by his was rejected by order dated 10.3.1987 on the ground that it is time barred and the pursuant to the orders of this court in W.P.No.18215/1987 dated 22.6.1990, the appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected on merits. The petitioner filed revision on 30.3.1991 and as per the case of the petitioner, he has not received any reply. On the ground that the petitioner is unable to maintain his family, filed a representation for grant of compassionate allowance under Rule 65 of the Rules, whereby the employees who were dismissed/removed from service were entitled to such allowance. At this junction it is necessary to extract Section 65 as under: “65. Compassionate Allowance (1) A railway servant who is dismissed or removed from service shall forfeit his pension and gratuity: Provided that the authority competent to dismiss or remove him from service may, if the case is deserving of special consideration sanction a compassionate allowance not exceeding by two-thirds of pension or gratuity or both which would have been admissible to him if he had retired on compassionate pension. (2). A compassionate allowance sanctioned under the proviso to sub-rule (1) shall not be less than three hundred seventy five rupees per month. 6. From the above it could be seen that in case of deserving railway servant who is dismissed or removed from service, is entitled for sanction of compassionate allowance. The case of the petitioner is that he has filed a representation on 22.7.1998 claiming benefit under Rule 65 of the Rules. The further case of the petitioner is that in similar circumstances, two individuals by names M.Koteswara Rao and A.D.Kabir who were removed from service, were granted compassionate allowance by virtue of the orders of this court in W.P.Nos.17475/1993 and 4688/1994. The respondents in the counter affidavit disputed the filing of the representation, dated 22.7.1998. 7. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances and as the respondents have considered the case of two individuals who filed writ petitions in W.P.No.17475/1993 and 4688/1994 for grant of compassionate allowance, the present writ petition is also disposed of with the following direction: “The petitioner shall file fresh representation with all the necessary facts and particulars, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and within a period of four weeks thereafter, the respondents shall consider the representation of the petitioner for grant of compassionate allowance under Rule 65 of the Rules, and pass appropriate orders.” 8. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. AVS --------------------------------- 07—11—2008