The need for special consideration in cases of compassionate allowance and the exceptions where the reasons for dismissal from service need to be taken into account.

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Shakdher, J. - CM No.38598/2021

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 12294/2021 & CM No.38597/2021[

Application filed on behalf of the petitioner for placing on record additional documents]

2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 30.08.2019, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal [in short the Tribunal] in O.A.No.4343/2017.

3. The petitioner had approached the Tribunal, as he was aggrieved by the rejection of the representation made by him to the respondents for grant of compassionate allowance, under Rule 41 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 [in short the 1972 Pension Rules]. This was the second time; the petitioner had approached the Tribunal.

3.1 In the first round, the Tribunal had directed the respondents, vide order dated 06.10.2017, passed in O.A. No.1212/2016, to reconsider the representation of the petitioner for grant of compassionate allowance. For the sake of convenience, the operative part of the said order is extracted hereafter:

"....I find that Annexure A-l order is not at all a speaking order. The Issue raised by the applicant in his Annexure A-3 representation dated 02.02.2016 have not at all been dealt with in the order. Such an order cannot stand scrutiny of law. I, therefore, set aside Annexure A-1 order dated 02.03.2016 passed by the respondents and remit the matter to the respondents with a direction to consider the aforesaid representation of the applicant and decide it within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, by passing a reasoned and speaking order...."

3.2. Thus, the representation dated 02.02.2016 made by the petitioner [which was sketchy and rather cryptic] was considered, as directed by the Tribunal. The relevant part of the said representation is extracted hereafter:

".......

1. That the applicant is Ex. Constable of Delhi Police who has wife and one minor child dependant on him.

2. That the applicant was suffering from some disease due to which he could [not] attend his duty. However, he was dismissed from the service vide order dated 19.07.2011 on the charges of absence but the issue of grant of compassionate allowance that was required to be considered was not considered.

3. That the applicant came to know from the judgment of supreme court in case of Mohinder Dutt Sharma versus Union of India, 2014 (11) SCC 541 that in the similar facts and circumstances the petitioner therein was directed to be granted compassionate allowance. The case of the applicant is squarely covered by this judgment. Therefore, the applicant is also submitting the present representation for grant of compassionate allowance on humanitarian grounds as provided in rule 41 of CCS (Pension) rules since there is no earning member in the house of the applicant.

5 [4]. That the applicant is filing the present representation, on the following grounds :

A. Because the applicant is a poor person having no source income whereby he could support his wife and one minor child who are dependant on him.

B. Because the applicant has no moveable/immoveable property on which he can fall back for support in these mitigating circumstances. Therefore the applicant is liable to be granted compassionate allowance on humanitarian grounds...."

3.3. The above-mentioned representation was considered by the respondents, and the same was rejected, via a speaking order dated 14.11.2017.

4. Mr Pranav Kaashyap, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says that, the petitioner is placed in difficult circumstances, and, therefore, relief under Rule 41 of the 1972 Pension Rules ought to have been granted.

5. To be noted, what is not denied by the counsel for the petitioner is that, the petitioner was absent from duty, without authorized leave between the following periods:-11.08.2009 and 09.10.2009; 17.10.2009 and 14.12.2009, and 16.03.2010 to 16.06.2010.

5.1. Because the petitioner did not join duty, disciplinary proceedings were commenced against him. It is not disputed by M