IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14607 of 2010 SHARDA DEVI WIFE OF LATE SATYA NARAYAN MISHRA, R/O VILLAGE-GARJAUL, P.O.GARJAUL, P.S.MAHUA, DISTRICT- VAISHALI….APPLICANT………………………………....PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE MINISTRY OF RAILWAY, NEW DELHI. 2. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER (ELECTRICITY) EASTERN NORTHERN RAILWAY, SAMASTIPUR DIVISION, DIST- SAMASTIPUR. 3. THE DIVISIONAL ELECTRIC ENGINEER, EASTERN NORTHERN RAILWAY, SAMASTIPUR, DISTT-SAMASTIPUR. 4. THE SECTION ENGINEER(ELECTRICITY) SAMASTIPUR DIVISION, DISTT- SAMASTIPUR………..(RESPONDENTS)……....RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02/ 03-Sep-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Railways. 2. Petitioner’s earlier writ petition filed in 2007 was dismissed as withdrawn on 26.04.2007 vide order contained in Annexure-3. There was an observation that permission to withdraw was sought to move the appropriate authority for redressal of grievances. Admittedly, prior to that the claim had been rejected by Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna. 3. The petitioner has again come to this Court with a grievance that authorities are not passing any order for compassionate allowance under 2 Rule 65 of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. Perusal of the said Rule shows that a railway servant who is dismissed or removed from service shall forfeit his pension and gratuity. There is a proviso to the aforesaid Rule enabling the authority to sanction compassionate allowance not exceeding two third of pension or gratuity if he finds that the case is deserving of special consideration. 4. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the proviso creates a right in a dismissed employee for an appropriate order under proviso either accepting or rejecting compassionate allowance. We do not agree with the aforesaid submission. The proviso is merely enabling in nature and does not create any right. It may be added herein that husband of the petitioner was removed from service on the basis of charges proved in a proceeding, on 8.1.1998. He is said to have died on 31.04.2003. Since he did not prefer any claim before the Tribunal or this Court, it will be presumed that he accepted the decision of the authority not to pass any order for compassionate allowance. Thus, the claim 3 appears to be barred by acquiescence as well as delay also. 5. We find no merit in this writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. perwez ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.)