IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Sudhir Kumar Jain, JJ.
Gauri Shankar - Appellant
Versus
Central Reserve Police Force & Anr. - Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No. 664 of 2021
Decided On : 13-05-2022
Compassionate Allowance - Pension Rules - Rule 41, Rule 39, Rule 49 - The court discussed the applicability of Rule 41, Rule 39, and Rule 49 of the CCS (Pension) Rules in the context of granting compassionate allowance to a dismissed government servant. The court emphasized that compassionate allowance is not related to the length of service rendered and should be granted if the case is deserving of special consideration. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the competent authority to release the amount towards compensation pension along with service gratuity in accordance with previous orders dated 15.06.2016 and 09.11.2017.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a dismissed government servant, sought to quash the order dated 22.09.2020, which denied him compassionate allowance. The petitioner argued that the order was a review of the earlier decision granting compassionate allowance and was untenable as there is no requirement for a minimum duration of service under the Pension Rules for the grant of compassionate allowance.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that compassionate allowance is not related to the length of service rendered and should be granted if the case is deserving of special consideration. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the competent authority to release the amount towards compensation pension along with service gratuity in accordance with previous orders dated 15.06.2016 and 09.11.2017.
Issues: The main issue was the applicability of Rule 41, Rule 39, and Rule 49 of the CCS (Pension) Rules in granting compassionate allowance to a dismissed government servant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that compassionate allowance is not related to the length of service rendered and should be granted if the case is deserving of special consideration. The court emphasized that each case has to be seen on its own facts and merits.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order and directed the competent authority to release the amount towards compensation pension along with service gratuity in accordance with previous orders dated 15.06.2016 and 09.11.2017.
JUDGMENT
Suresh Kumar Kait, J. - 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 deserv
Compassionate allowance should be granted if the case is deserving of special consideration, irrespective of the length of service rendered.
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 n....
Dismissal from service – Compassionate allowances - While granting compassionate allowance authority has absolute discretion to decide as to time period from which allowance is to be paid and a gover....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that economic distress and the length of service can warrant 'special consideration' for compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the CCS Pension R....
Compassionate Allowances under the CCS Pension Rules, 1972, can be granted from the date of filing a representation, reflecting their nature akin to pensions but granted at the discretion of the comp....
Compassionate Allowance is discretionary, akin to pension, and subject to the Competent Authority's subjective satisfaction and exceptional circumstances.
Past misconduct does not bar compassionate allowance up to two-thirds pension; requires independent consideration of family hardship and service factors.
Compassionate allowances must consider the overall service and financial condition of the dismissed employee, as per established guidelines.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.