ups_01255 — Applicant initially punished for certain omissions with the penalty of removal was reconsidered and altered as compulsory retirement from service with 1&frasl;3 rd pensionary benefits. Even though compulsory retirement was found to be in order, reduction of pension to 1&frasl;3rd is not sustainable as the reduction pension cannot be less than 2&frasl;3 rd which led to the direction for reconsideration of pensionary benefits as per rule

UPS

Applicant initially punished for certain omissions with the penalty of removal was reconsidered and altered as compulsory retirement from service with 1&frasl;3 rd pensionary benefits. Even though compulsory retirement was found to be in order, reduction of pension to 1&frasl;3rd is not sustainable as the reduction pension cannot be less than 2&frasl;3 rd which led to the direction for reconsideration of pensionary benefits as per rule — This chunk discusses the ruling that Railway Servants (D&A) Rules, 1968 and Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 should be interpreted harmoniously rather than in exclusion. It further states that ... — Facts: This OA is filed by the wife of the compulsorily retired exemployee Shri D. Chavda. Shri Chavda was issued with a charge-sheet for absenting himself from duty from 1st December, 1997 to 1st January, 1998. He was found guilty and was removed from service which punishment was upheld by the Appellate Authority on account of delay. The Applicant filed a revision petition stating that her husband proceeded on medical leave. That revision petition was also rejected by Order, dated 12-9-2007. Against that Order, O.A. No. 83 of 2008 was filed which was disposed of directing the Respondents to consider the appeal after leaving the Applicant. In compliance thereto, Divisional Electrical Engineer reduced the punishment to that of compulsory retirement with effect from 20-5-1999. Aggrieved by that order, this OA is filed. The Respondents sustained their order on the ground of strictly observing rules for imposition of compulsory retirement which is consistent with gravity of offence. The question of referring him to Medical Board does not arise as he had not submitted any Medical Certificate earlier. No Compassionate Ground Appointment to the Applicant herein can be given as the ex-employee was punished for his guilt. Thereafter, M.A. No. 243 of 2010 in O.A. No. 20-5-2010 was filed seeking amendment to OA wherein it was said that the punishment in another judgment of CAT / ADI, the pensionary benefit or 1&frasl;3rd the pensionary benefit was granted. The Applicant argued that there is no rule for entitlement for 1&frasl;3rd pensionary benefits as per Rule 6 of Railway Servant (D&A) Rules, 1968. A person undergoing compulsory retirement is entitled for full pensionary benefits. The order of compulsory retirement with 1&frasl;3 rd pensionary benefits was supported by Respondents. On hearing both sides, it was held:

UPS

Applicant initially punished for certain omissions with the penalty of removal was reconsidered and altered as compulsory retirement from service with 1&frasl;3 rd pensionary benefits. Even though compulsory retirement was found to be in order, reduction of pension to 1&frasl;3rd is not sustainable as the reduction pension cannot be less than 2&frasl;3 rd which led to the direction for reconsideration of pensionary benefits as per rule — This chunk discusses the ruling that Railway Servants (D&A) Rules, 1968 and Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 should be interpreted harmoniously rather than in exclusion. It further states that ... — Facts: This OA is filed by the wife of the compulsorily retired exemployee Shri D. Chavda. Shri Chavda was issued with a charge-sheet for absenting himself from duty from 1st December, 1997 to 1st January, 1998. He was found guilty and was removed from service which punishment was upheld by the Appellate Authority on account of delay. The Applicant filed a revision petition stating that her husband proceeded on medical leave. That revision petition was also rejected by Order, dated 12-9-2007. Against that Order, O.A. No. 83 of 2008 was filed which was disposed of directing the Respondents to consider the appeal after leaving the Applicant. In compliance thereto, Divisional Electrical Engineer reduced the punishment to that of compulsory retirement with effect from 20-5-1999. Aggrieved by that order, this OA is filed. The Respondents sustained their order on the ground of strictly observing rules for imposition of compulsory retirement which is consistent with gravity of offence. The question of referring him to Medical Board does not arise as he had not submitted any Medical Certificate earlier. No Compassionate Ground Appointment to the Applicant herein can be given as the ex-employee was punished for his guilt. Thereafter, M.A. No. 243 of 2010 in O.A. No. 20-5-2010 was filed seeking amendment to OA wherein it was said that the punishment in another judgment of CAT / ADI, the pensionary benefit or 1&frasl;3rd the pensionary benefit was granted. The Applicant argued that there is no rule for entitlement for 1&frasl;3rd pensionary benefits as per Rule 6 of Railway Servant (D&A) Rules, 1968. A person undergoing compulsory retirement is entitled for full pensionary benefits. The order of compulsory retirement with 1&frasl;3 rd pensionary benefits was supported by Respondents. On hearing both sides, it was held:

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text