IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD Friday, September 09, 2011. Present: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Ravi Shankar W.P.No. 503 of 2000 Between: M. Vasya Naik ..Petitioner and The Asst. Security Officer, Now Called Asst. Security Commissioner, RPF, SCR, Hubli Division, Hubli, Karnataka and two others …Respondents The Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Ravi Shankar W.P.No. 503 of 2000 O r d e r: Heard Sri J. M. Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gowri Shankar Sanghi, learned standing counsel for the respondents. 2. The only point that arises for determination in this writ petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to compassionate allowance from the date of his removal from service. The petitioner further says that the removal order is actually dated:15-03-1983 and it was served on him on 2-4-1983, but these dates would not make any difference. 3. The point arises in the following circumstances: The petitioner was earlier in the service of Railway Protection Force (RPF) as RPF Rakshak and he was subsequently promoted as Senior Rakshak. The other details are not necessary. A disciplinary enquiry was conducted against him on certain charges of misconduct and he was finally removed from service by order of the first respondent – Disciplinary Authority and that order is dated: 15-3- 1983. The petitioner’s grievance is that at the time of removal or dismissal, he ought to have been granted compassionate allowance as contemplated under Rule 65 of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 (for short ‘the Rules’) and he was not granted that allowance. It is seen that the petitioner earlier filed W.P.No. 16152 of 1994 questioning his very removal from service; but, ultimately he gave up that relief and sought for compassionate allowance. Accordingly this court by order dated:23-09-1998 in the above writ petition directed the concerned authority to consider the case of the petitioner for granting compassionate allowance. Accordingly, it appears that the petitioner made a representation and thereafter, the Divisional Security Commissioner - the second respondent herein by Memorandum dated:02-11-1998 sanctioned compassionate allowance in accordance with 65 of the Rules. It should be noted that this order dated:2-11-1998 reads that the petitioner has been granted a minimum compassionate allowance to the petitioner with immediate effect from the date of the said Memorandum which is 2-11-1998. The plea of the petitioner is that he ought to have been granted compassionate allowance right from the date of his removal from service i.e., 15-3-1983. The contention of the petitioner’s counsel is that Rule 65 contemplates payment of compassionate allowance right from the date of removal and, in fact, the disciplinary authority did not pass any order regarding payment of compassionate allowance at the time of his removal and therefore that relief should now be granted to the petitioner. I am unable to agree with this contention. Rule 65 of Railway Services (Pension) Rules,1993 reads as follows: 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 two-third of pension or gratuity or both which would have been admissible to him if he had retired on compensation pension. (2) A compassionate allowance sanctioned under the proviso to sub-rule (1) shall not be less than three hundred seventy five rupees per mensum. 4. A perusal of Rule 65 (1) would show that when a railway servant is dismissed or removed from service he shall forfeit his pension and gratuity. The proviso to the Rule 65 (1) would however make a slight deviation from the above Rule and says that if the case of a railway servant deserves of special consideration a compassionate allowance as prescribed in the said proviso may be sanctioned by the competent authority. The words “deserving of special consideration” would indicate that there must be some circumstances which may warrant a sympathetic consideration in favour of such a servant for granting compassionate allowance. This aspect has to be decided by the competent authority by giving reasons. This aspect presupposes that there should be some material before the said authority for granting the compassionate allowance. In the present case pursuant to the orders passed in the earlier W.P.No. 16152 of 1994 the concerned authority granted compassionate allowance to the petitioner only from 2-11-1998 by its Memorandum. This is not challenged by the railways and as per the version of the petitioner, he is in receipt of the said compassionate allowance. The only question now is whether the petitioner should be granted compassionate allowance from the date of his removal from service. 5. In view of the wording of the proviso to Rule 65 (1) and as there is no material before this Court it is not permissible for this court now in these proceedings to pronounce upon the question whether the petitioner can be granted compassionate allowance from the date of his removal from service. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the matter should be sent to the competent authority for deciding this question afresh. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel for the respondents also agreed for this course. 6. Accordingly the petitioner is directed to make a representation before the concerned competent authority seeking compassionate allowance from the date of his removal from service setting forth his case and on such representation being made, the said authority shall dispose of the same in accordance with the Rules and also the Circulars issued by the concerned authorities from time to time on the subject, by giving clear reasons for either refusing or granting such allowance. The petitioner shall make his representation within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter the authority concerned shall dispose of that representation and pass appropriate orders within four months thereafter. 7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms. No costs. _ ________________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J. September 9, 2011. *BVS