LawDistill
Supreme Court of India

RITA RANI vs UNION OF INDIA on 10 July, 2008

Cites 0 provisionsCites 0 judgmentsCited by 0
C.A. No.-004307-004307 - 2008Official PDFBench Konakuppakatil Gopinathan Balakrishnan, Palanisamy Sathasivam, Jagdish Madhurlal PanchalAdvocates DEVENDRA SINGH MEHRA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4307 OF 2008
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.18571/2006)
RITA RANIAPPELLANT.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.RESPONDENTS.
O R D E R

Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional

Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India.

The appellant is the wife of Subeg Singh who joined service as a

Khalasi (Helper) in the Northern Railways in 1984. Subeg Singh was served

with a charge sheet on 7.7.1995 and he filed his explanation and after

departmental enquiry on 17.11.1995 he was removed from service. Subeg

Singh challenged the order before the Central Administrative Tribunal and

the O.A. was dismissed. The present appellant submitted that her husband

Subeg Singh filed appeal on 10.9.1996 but the respondent Railways does

not admit that the appeal had been filed by Subeg Singh. Subeg Singh died

on 15.8.2000. The present appellant filed an application before the Central

Administrative Tribunal for pension but that was rejected. She challenged

that order before the High Court by way of writ petition and that was also

dismissed on the ground that Subeg Singh had not challenged the order of removal from service by

way of an appeal. It appears that Subeg Singh could not pursue the appeal

as he had passed away during that time. Anyway we are not very much

concerned with the validity of his removal.

It is pointed out by the appellant's counsel that two other

employees, who were prosecuted for disciplinary proceeding along with

Subeg Singh, were later reinstated in service and on going through the

charges framed against him, it appears that the charge against Subeg Singh

was that he had threatened the Superintendent. That apart there was no

other charge against him. He had served for more than 10 years, when he

was removed from service.

In the facts and circumstances, we direct the respondent-

Railways to consider whether the appellant herein would be entitled to get

any pension on compassionate ground. The matter may be considered and

appropriate orders may be passed within a period of three months by the

appropriate authority.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.