Rule 65 compassionate allowance is unavailable to compulsorily retired railway employees.

The respondent, appointed as a DSC Khalasi in 1991, was proceeded against for unauthorised absence and compulsorily retired by order dated 11 June 2002.

The Railway authorities settled the benefits admissible on compulsory retirement.

The respondent later sought compassionate allowance under Rule 65 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993.

After the authorities rejected his claim, the Central Administrative Tribunal allowed his application in O.A. No. 385 of 2024. The Union of India challenged that order.

The High Court noted that the claim had been made after a substantial delay, described in its reasoning as 15 years.

1. Whether a railway servant compulsorily retired as a disciplinary penalty is eligible for compassionate allowance under Rule 65 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993.

2. Whether the Tribunal could direct the grant of compassionate allowance in these circumstances, particularly after a substantial delay and where compulsory-retirement benefits had already been settled.

Rule 65 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 provides that a railway servant dismissed or removed from service forfeits pension and gratuity, while permitting the competent authority, in a case deserving special consideration, to sanction compassionate allowance of up to two-thirds of the pension or gratuity that would have been admissible on compensation pension.

The Court treated that provision as inapplicable to an employee compulsorily retired, and compassionate allowance as a discretionary concession rather than an enforceable right.

It distinguished Mohinder Dutt Sharma v. Union of India (Civil Appeal No. 2111 of 2009, decided 11 April 2014), which concerned dismissal and the pari materia provision in Rule 41 of the CCS Pension Rules.

It also relied on the Division Bench decision in Divisional Personnel Officer v. G. Lakshmi, 2026 MHC 3380, concerning the scope and discretionary character of Rule 65.

The respondent’s punishment was compulsory retirement, not dismissal or removal—the categories expressly addressed by Rule 65. The Court therefore held that Rule 65 did not support his claim.

It considered Mohinder Dutt Sharma inapplicable because that case concerned dismissal, and noted that the respondent had already received the benefits due on compulsory retirement.

In light of the nature of the punishment, the settled benefits, and the substantial delay, the Tribunal’s direction to grant compassionate allowance was contrary to the scope of Rule 65.

It set aside the Tribunal’s order dated 19 November 2024 in O.A. No. 385 of 2024, allowed the writ petition, and closed the connected miscellaneous petition; there was no order as to costs.