The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of compassionate allowance and pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 should consider the deserving nature of the case and is not solely dependent on the length of service rendered by the government servant.

JUDGMENT :

Suresh Kumar Kait, J.

1. Petitioner claims to have been recruited on the post of Constable in the year 1994 by respondent No. 1-Central Reserve Police Force (henceforth referred to as the “CRPF”) through respondent No. 2/Union of India, which is under the aegis of Ministry of Home Affairs. The role of petitioner has been to assist the States/Territories in carrying out policing operations for maintaining the rule of law and public order in the country and to assist in counter-insurgency operations.

2. According to petitioner, on 17.03.2003, an argument erupted between the petitioner and his superiors in relation to a training exercise undertaken by petitioner, subsequent to which he was suspended from service on the said day, followed by an enquiry and further, dismissal from service on 20.08.2003 from respondent No. 1/CRPF. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the aforesaid dismissal order dated 20.08.2003 was rejected by the appellate authority on 24.12.2003. Even the revision preferred against the aforesaid rejection order dated 24.12.2003, also stood dismissed on 12.05.2004 by the competent authority of respondent No. 1/CRPF.

3. Petitioner further claims to have invoked writ jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court against the aforesaid order dated 12.05.2004 which stood dismissed lacking territorial jurisdiction. Thereafter, petitioner invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court against the dismissal orders dated 20.08.2003, 24.12.2003 and 12.05.2004 (in W.P. (C) No. 13526/2006), which stood dismissed as withdrawn on 17.03.2016 with liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the competent authority for grant of compassionate allowance etc. and further direction to respondent No. 1 to consider petitioner’s representation as per law.

4. Subsequent upon petitioner’s making representation, respondent No. 1 vide Order dated 15.06.2016 sanctioned compassionate allowance equivalent to 2/3rd of the amount towards minimum pension in terms of Rule 41 of CCS Rules payable from 21.08.2003, acknowledging the hardship faced by the petitioner. A copy of the same is said to have internally transmitted between different departments of respondent No. 1/CRPF, however, petitioner received a letter dated 02.12.2016, copy marked to others, from a department stating doubt on petitioner’s eligibility to grant of compensation pension within the rubric of compassionate allowance and entitling him eligible for only 2/3rd of service gratuity. Reliance was placed upon Rule 49 of the CCS Rules therein to state that compassionate allowance could be granted only if the qualifying service of 10 years had been undergone, whereas the service duration of petitioner was 9 years 1 month and 8 days only and so, pension could not be granted to him and only 2/3rd service gratuity could be granted.

5. According to petitioner, thereafter a modification order dated 09.11.2017; letter dated 09.05.2018 and communication dated February, 2019 were issued by the competent authorities of respondent No. 1, subsequent to which letter dated 22.09.2020 was received by the petitioner denying any entitlement of compassionate allowance.

6. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order dated 22.09.2020 passed by respondent No. 1/CRPF, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the said order with direction to respondent No. 1 to release the amount towards compensation pension along with service gratuity w.e.f. 21.08.2003 in terms of its order(s) dated 15.06.2016 and 09.11.2017; to pay interest @ 12% pa. on the aforesaid sums towards compassionate allowance from 15.06.2016 till payment is made to petitioner.

7. During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 22.09.2020 is sue moto review of the earlier decision dated 15.06.2016 vide which petitioner was granted compassionate allowance on the basis that petitioner has not completed minimum 10 years of service and it