Failure to decide compassionate allowance at removal does not bar its later consideration.

The applicant, widow of a railway employee removed from service, sought compassionate allowance after her earlier requests were rejected.

In an earlier application, the Jabalpur Bench of the Tribunal had granted her liberty to represent for compassionate allowance under Rule 65 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, and directed the respondents to pass a speaking order.

The respondents rejected her claim by orders dated 5 October 2011 and 28 June 2016.

The applicant challenged the latter order in this application; delay had been condoned.

1. Whether the applicant’s claim for compassionate allowance could be rejected because the removal order did not address compassionate allowance.

2. Whether the orders dated 5 October 2011 and 28 June 2016 should be set aside and the claim reconsidered under the applicable pension rules.

Rule 65 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 provides that a railway servant dismissed or removed from service forfeits pension and gratuity, but the competent authority may, in a case deserving special consideration, sanction compassionate allowance, subject to the prescribed ceiling and minimum.

The Tribunal also considered Rule 41 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 2026, including its provisions for examining and deciding compassionate-allowance claims, and directed the respondents to consider both rules.

In the earlier OA No. 278 of 2009, the Jabalpur Bench had directed the applicant to make a representation and the respondents to decide it by a speaking order.

The Tribunal found that the respondents had rejected the claim on the ground that the removal order contained no specific decision granting compassionate allowance.

It held that Rule 65 does not require the allowance issue to be decided simultaneously with removal; the absence of such a decision in the removal order did not, by itself, bar later consideration.

The respondents had therefore rejected the claim on an insufficient ground and had not given effect to the earlier direction in its true letter and spirit.

Nor did the failure to specifically challenge the 2011 order require dismissal, particularly since delay had been condoned.

It directed the respondents to reconsider the applicant’s claim for compassionate allowance afresh, taking into account Rule 65 of the 1993 Rules and Rule 41 of the 2026 Rules, and to complete the exercise within three months of production of a certified copy of the order.

No order as to costs was made.