Mandatory Consideration of Representation for Grant of Compassionate Allowance to Removed Railway Employees Under Rule 65.

The applicant, Bhaiyya Lal, was employed by Northern Railway starting in 1979.

Following departmental proceedings initiated on June 3, 2013, regarding unauthorized absence since January 14, 2013, he was removed from service via an order dated February 4, 2015.

This removal deprived him of all retiral and pensionary benefits.

The applicant filed a representation on April 29, 2025, seeking Compassionate Allowance, which remained pending with the respondents.

Consequently, he approached the Tribunal seeking a direction for the respondents to grant said allowance under the relevant rules and to decide his pending representation.

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the applicant's pending representation regarding the grant of Compassionate Allowance in a time-bound manner.

Rule 65 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, which governs the grant of Compassionate Allowance to railway servants who are removed or dismissed from service.

The court also relied on the principle of natural justice and procedural precedents, specifically citing Ram Niwas Meena v. Delhi Police (O.A. No. 2137/2025), where the Tribunal directed authorities to decide pending representations without delving into the merits of the case initially.

The Tribunal did not adjudicate on the merits of the applicant’s eligibility for the Compassionate Allowance.

Instead, it focused on the procedural lapse regarding the respondents' failure to dispose of the applicant's representation dated April 29, 2025.

Applying the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal determined that the Competent Authority must exercise its administrative duty to provide a reasoned response to the employee's request.

By setting a four-week deadline, the Tribunal sought to ensure a time-bound administrative remedy while preserving the respondents' legal discretion to decide the claim in accordance with the law.

The authority is required to pass a reasoned and speaking order without being influenced by the Tribunal's observations.

If the decision is unfavorable, the applicant is granted liberty to approach the appropriate forum.

No costs were awarded.