THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR W.P.No.306 OF 2011 29-01-2011 Between: Asifa @ Khajabee ……….Petitioner And The Government of AP rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Hyderabad and others. ………Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR W.P.No.306 OF 2011 ORDER : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.G.Shankar) The petitioner is the wife of one Khazi Mohinuddin. The husband of the petitioner worked as a Head Constable. He was appointed to service in 1942. He was dismissed from service in 1956. The husband of the petitioner preferred administrative appeal regarding his dismissal. His dismissal, however, stood confirmed by the departmental authority. That was the end of the matter. 2. The husband of the petitioner subsequently passed away. The petitioner now seeks for a writ of Mandamus to sanction compassionate allowance to her. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon Rule 65 of the Railway Services Pension Rules, which allows the employer, who has authority to dismiss the employee, to grant compassionate allowance as an exceptional case in special circumstances. 4. The learned Government Pleader for Services-I submitted that the writ petitioner arises the question of compassionate allowance on as many as five occasions. She apparently filed a writ petition before a Single Judge of this Court unsuccessfully. He further contended that the writ petitioner approached the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, for appropriate relief. The writ petitioner was again unsuccessful. The learned Government Pleader further submitted that in the event, the petitioner is granted compassionate allowance, it may become a precedent opening the flood gates of the Government to consider the cases of various other applicants. 5. The petitioner is 67 years old. She is said to be suffering from throat cancer. Her husband was dismissed from service more than 50 years ago. The learned Government Pleader for Services-I placed reliance upon Rule 40 of the A.P. (Revised) Pension Rules, 1980 (for brevity ‘Rules, 1980’) which runs paramateria to Rule 65 of the Railway Services Pension Rules and pointed out that under Rule 40 of the Rules, 1980, it is the dismissed employee alone who can seek for compassionate allowance. It is the case of the learned Government Pleader that the family members of a dismissed employee are not entitled to seek for compassionate allowance. 6. When Rule 40 of the Rules, 1980 empowers the Government to consider the case of a dismissed employee for compassionate allowance, it is imperative that his widow and children should be more favourably be considered for such allowance as exceptional circumstance. We, therefore, consider it that the Government is entitled to consider the case of the present petitioner for compassionate allowance in view of Rule 40 of the Rules, 1980. 7. We, accordingly, dispose of the writ petition directing the Government to consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically taking into consideration the age of the writ petitioner, the fact that she has been suffering from throat cancer and other extenuating circumstances and dispose of the same within a period of four weeks from today. 8. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED Dated: 29-01-2011 ________________________ JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR kvr