Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/2269/2004 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2269 of
2004
=========================================================
KULSUMBIBI
WD/O HA RAHIM - Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNION
OF INDIA & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
YV SHAH for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1, 3,
SERVED
BY RPAD - (R) for Respondent(s) : 1,
MRS VASAVDATTA BHATT for
Respondent(s) : 2,
MR NK MAJMUDAR for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
Date
: 25/02/2011
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI)
1. We
have heard Mr. Y.V. Shah, learned Counsel for the petitioners. No
one has appeared for the respondent.
2. The
petitioner was working as a loco cleaner. He was removed from the
service on 17.06.1986, on the charge of misconduct. He filed an O.A.
before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was dismissed. The
same was challenged by him in Special Civil Application No.7246 of
2001. The petitioner died on 17.04.2000. Thereafter, the Division
Bench of this Court dismissed the writ-petition, observing that the
claim of the petitioners, for benefit of compensatory pension, as
provided under Rule 416 of the Railway Pension and Retirement
Benefits Rules, be considered, on a representation made by the
petitioners.
3. The
petitioners made a representation and their claim has been rejected,
by an order, dated 10.12.2002, passed by the Respondents. It is this
order, which has been challenged in this petition.
4. The
reason for rejecting the claim of the petitioners, as mentioned in
the order dated 10.12.2002, was that the petitioner was unauthorized
absentee. The petitioner, therefore, does not deserve any special
consideration and representation, demanding compensatory pension,
made by the petitioners was rejected.
5. The
learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a Division
Bench decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No.11318 of
2002, decided on 21.03.2003, by which the Division Bench found that
the grant of compensatory allowance is the discretion given to the
competent authority and directed the respondents to again decide the
representation.
6. Once,
the claim of the petitioners has been rejected by the authority on
10.12.2002, in our opinion, the authority cannot be directed to
decide the matter again, unless there was some mistake committed by
it. We do not find that the discretion exercised by the competent
authority in rejecting the representation of the petitioner was in
any manner illegal.
7. We
find no merit in this petition. This petition fails and is dismissed,
accordingly. Rule is discharged.
(V.
M. SAHAI, J.)
(G.B.SHAH,
J.)
Umesh/
Top