Compassionate allowance sanctioned before RBE 164/2008 cannot be reopened for arrears from the removal date.

The applicant’s father, a Railway employee, was removed from service on 27 August 1980.

On his application dated 23 July 2008, compassionate allowance was sanctioned from 30 August 2008 under Rule 65 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, and was paid until his death on 11 April 2015.

The applicant later sought allowance retrospectively from the date of removal, relying on Railway Board Circular RBE No. 164/2008 dated 4 November 2008.

The respondents rejected the claim by order dated 1 June 2018. The applicant challenged that order and sought arrears and interest.

1. Whether RBE No. 164/2008 entitled the applicant’s father to compassionate allowance from the date of his removal, notwithstanding that allowance had already been sanctioned from 30 August 2008.

2. Whether the respondents’ rejection of the applicant’s claim warranted interference by the Tribunal.

Rule 65 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 permits the authority competent to dismiss or remove a Railway servant, where the case merits special consideration, to sanction compassionate allowance subject to the prescribed limit.

Under RBE No. 164/2008, specified past cases in which the disciplinary authority had made no specific decision for or against compassionate allowance could be reviewed, subject to the circular’s conditions; where allowance was sanctioned on such review, it was to take effect from the date of dismissal or removal.

In the case of a deceased employee, the circular also provided for notional allowance from that date where necessary to establish eligibility for family pension.

No judicial precedents were cited.

The Tribunal read RBE No. 164/2008 as permitting review of qualifying past cases where no specific decision on compassionate allowance had been made.

Although no allowance order had been passed at the time of the father’s removal, the father had applied for and received compassionate allowance from 30 August 2008, before the circular was issued on 4 November 2008.

The Tribunal therefore held that the case did not fall within the category of past cases contemplated by the circular and that the matter could not be reopened to award allowance from the date of removal.

It dismissed the O.A. for want of merit, made no order as to costs, and disposed of any pending miscellaneous applications.