Compassionate Allowance is discretionary, akin to pension, and subject to the Competent Authority's subjective satisfaction and exceptional circumstances.

JUDGMENT

Tushar Rao Gedela, J. - In the present case, the State of Delhi, as the petitioners assails the order dated 17.01.2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in O.A. No. 2929/2015, whereby the Tribunal had allowed compassionate allowance with retrospective effect, that is, from the date of dismissal i.e., 10.07.1992 to the deceased respondent Late Ashok Kumar Singh (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent' which also includes his LRs.) Ex-ASI (Ministerial) who unfortunately expired on 01.12.2015 and is now being represented by his Legal Representatives.

2. The present case is one of the many rounds of litigation that the respondent faced.

3. Shorn of all the unnecessary details, the facts germane to decide the present lis are being referred to hereunder.

4. The respondent, Late Ashok Kumar Singh had joined the Delhi Police as a Constable in the year 1970. In the year 1992, due to the acts of misconduct, premised on the basis of assaulting senior officer, an enquiry was held and consequent thereto, the respondent was dismissed from service vide order dated 10.07.1992.

5. The said dismissal was challenged by him before the Tribunal, which too dismissed the said O.A. No. 98/1993 filed by him. Subsequent thereto, the writ petition filed by him before this Court also had been dismissed and the Special Leave Petition, which he preferred, bearing SLP (C) 14260/2012, too was dismissed by the Supreme Court on merits vide order dated 31.08.2012. However, while dismissing the said SLP, the Supreme Court granted liberty to the respondent to approach the authorities and seek Compassionate Allowance in accordance with the rules.

6. Consequent to the liberty so granted by the Supreme Court vide order 31.08.2012, the respondent filed a representation dated 12.09.2012 with the Competent Authority of the petitioner.

7. The aforesaid representation was rejected by the Competent Authority i.e., the Deputy Commissioner of Police, 1st Bn., DAP, Delhi vide the order dated 27.11.2012. On an appeal thereto, the Appellate Authority, vide the order dated 02.01.2013 upheld the rejection order and dismissed the appeal.

8. The respondent preferred an O.A. No. 603/2013 before the Tribunal challenging the orders dated 27.11.2012 and 02.01.2013 rejecting his representation seeking Compassionate Allowance. The Tribunal vide the order dated 21.10.2013, directed the petitioner herein to consider the representation dated 12.09.2012 afresh.

9. In compliance of the order dated 21.10.2013 of the Tribunal, the Competent Authority after re-considering the said representation, granted Compassionate Allowance to the respondent vide its order dated 05.09.2014 which, was made effective from the date of the order itself i.e., 05.09.2014.

10. Not being satisfied with the grant of Compassionate Allowance w.e.f., 05.09.2014, the respondent submitted a representation on 05.01.2015 to the Competent Authority seeking arrears w.e.f., 10.07.1992 to 04.09.2014. However, this representation was rejected vide order dated 12.06.2015 by the Competent Authority.

11. Consequent upon the said rejection of the representation requesting for Compassionate Allowance w.e.f., 10.07.1992, the respondent preferred O.A. No. 2929/2015 before the Tribunal. Finding favour with the contentions put forth by the respondent, and considering the judgments on Compassionate Allowance, the Tribunal, vide order dated 17.01.2017, directed the petitioners herein to grant Compassionate Allowance from the date of dismissal i.e., 10.07.1992.

12. It is pertinent to note that during the pendency of O.A. No. 2929/2015, the respondent Ashok Kumar Singh had left for his heavenly abode on 01.12.2015. Subsequently, the O.A. was pursued by the wife of the respondent, namely, Ms. Malti Devi. Unfortunately, Ms. Malti Devi, wife of respondent also left for her heavenly abode on 29.09.2017 leaving behind her, three married daughters.

13. The order dated 17.01.2017 in