THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.25337 OF 2004 BETWEEN: 1. Union of India, rep. By its General Manger (Personnel), South Central Railway, and another. PETITIONERS And Smt. Saleha Begum, W/o. Late Sarwaruddin, Ex-Driver, R/o.1-5-29, Jubli Market, Kazipet, Warangal District. RESPONDENT Counsel for the petitioners: Mr. T. S. Venkata Ramana Counsel for the respondent: Sri G. Pavana Murthy The Court made the following – ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) By invoking Certiorari jurisdiction of this Court, the Union of India seeks quashing of the order, dated 8.09.2004 in O.A.No.77 of 2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. The facts, which are not in dispute and which gave raise for filing of this writ petition, are as under. The respondent, who is the widow of deceased Sarwaruddin, moved the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) for sanction of compassionate allowance to her from the date of removal of her husband from service, in terms of para 309 of the manual of Pension Rules, 1950 replaced by Rule 65 of the Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993 (for short ‘the Railway Pension Rules), after setting aside the rejection order passed by the respondents, stating that her husband worked in the South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, for a period of 34 years in Loco running shed. While he was working as Driver ‘B’, on 14.08.1988 he failed to keep the Train under control, as a result, the Train passed down loop line starter signal and derailed in the sand hump by two engines and six box wagons, at Uppal Railway Station. In the said accident though there was no loss of lives and Railway property, after conducting enquiry into the negligence, he was removed from the service, and the same has been confirmed by the appellate authority. The deceased filed O.A.N.91 of 1992 challenging the removal order and the same was disposed of on 5.04.1995 holding that the penalty of removal from service is excessive. Since the deceased rendered 34 years of service and left with hardly a year to retire, his family members should not be deprived of the pensionary benefits for a penalty of this nature, and directed the G.M. to reconsider the order dated 19.03.1991 and suitably modify the penalty to meet the ends of justice. While so, the husband of the applicant died on 14.02.1999. Therefore, the applicant made a representation on 26.10.1999 to sanction at least compassionate allowance. On rejecting the request of the compassionate allowance, she filed O.A.No.1305 of 2001 for sanction of compassionate grant/allowance, which was disposed of by the Tribunal on 21.09.2001, granting liberty to the applicant to make a fresh representation to the General Manager within 15 days, and on making such representation, the same was directed to be disposed of within a period of one month. In obedience to the said order, the applicant made a representation on 27.9.2001 enclosing a copy of the order passed in O.A.No.1305 of 2001 with a request to sanction compassionate allowance as per the Rules in force. Again the same was rejected. Questioning the said rejection order, she filed the impugned O.A. contending that in a similar case in O.A.No.696 of 2002, dated 2.08.2002 the applicant therein was allowed sanction of compassionate allowance and in O.A.No.1561 of 2002 dated 9.06.2003 the relief was given to the applicant, which was similar to that of the applicant, and therefore, the compassionate allowance would be allowed to her also on the basis of Rule 65 of the Railway Pension Rules. Similar view has been taken by the Chandigarh Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.146/HR/95, dated 3.12.1996 and by the High Court of Panjab and Haryana in Lok Ram v. Haryana State Electricity Board[1]. Rule 65 of the Railway Pension Rules provides sanction of compassionate allowance keeping in view the death of the deceased. The Tribunal, after referring to its earlier judgment in O.A.No.91 of 1992 dated 5.04.1995, by an elaborate order concluded that since the order passed in O.A.No.91 of 1992 has not been challenged at that time, it would be fair that the request of the applicant should be considered with utmost sympathy, as a special case. In case the logical conclusions with respect to the findings of the tribunal were given effect to, perhaps the deceased employee would not have lost his job totally. In not modifying the orders, as directed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.91 of 1992 filed by the deceased husband of the applicant, the Tribunal cannot, but issue clear directions to the respondents to exercise their discretion in favour of the applicant at least now and sanction compassionate allowance as prayed for by the applicant in the O.A., and accordingly disposed of the O.A. The learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondent agreed that the Tribunal allowed O.A.No.532 of 2006 dated 17.10.2007, which was unsuccessfully challenged by the CAT in W.P.No.28269 of 2007 wherein this Court dismissed the writ petition holding that the Tribunal is perfectly justified in ordering O.A.No.532 of 1992 in terms of Rule 65 of Railway Pension Rules and S.L. Circular No.145 of 1995 dated 1.12.1995, for grant of compassionate allowance. However, both the counsel admitted that the present writ petition also deserves to be dismissed since the Tribunal uniformly held that due to the length of service rendered by the deceased employee, the respondent herein is entitled to grant of compassionate allowance, and cannot be deprived of the same. In view of the same, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ___________________ (A. GOPAL REDDY, J.) __________________________ (SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J.) 10th November, 2009 Js. [1] 1995 (5) SLR 566