SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 3240

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, Manoj Jain, JJ.
Anwar Khan Alias Anwar Ct/gd (951360047) – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
W.P. (C) 9162 of 2023 & CM. APPL. 34827 of 2023
Decided On : 12-07-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Somnath Bhattacharya, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Ashish Batra, Senior Panel Counsel and Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jha, Advocate for UOI.

Delay in filing a representation should not be a ground for denying the grant of compensation allowance.

Headnote:

Compensation Allowance - Delayed Representation - The court set aside the rejection of the petitioner's representation for grant of compensation allowance, emphasizing that delay in filing the representation should not be a ground for denying the same. The respondents were directed to decide the representation on its merits within a specified timeframe and were instructed not to reject it solely on the ground of delay.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a Constable (Driver), was dismissed from service after a departmental inquiry. He filed a representation seeking grant of compensation pension under Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which was rejected due to being filed after a delay of over 12 years.

Finding of the Court:

The court set aside the rejection of the petitioner's representation and directed the respondents to decide the representation on its merits within a specified timeframe, emphasizing that delay in filing the representation should not be a ground for denying the same.

Issues: The main issue was the rejection of the petitioner's representation for grant of compensation allowance solely on the ground of it being filed after a lapse of 12 years.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that delay in filing the representation should not be a ground for denying the grant of compensation allowance and directed the respondents to decide the representation on its merits within a specified timeframe.

Final Decision: The court set aside the rejection of the petitioner's representation and directed the respondents to decide the representation on its merits within a specified timeframe, instructing them not to reject it solely on the ground of delay.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)

1. Petitioner impugns order dated 21.03.2023, whereby the representation of the petitioner for grant of compensation allowance has been rejected on the ground that the representation was filed after a delay of over 12 years.

2. Petitioner, who was serving as a Constable (Driver) with the respondents, was dismissed from service after a departmental inquiry against him. He impugned his dismissal but was unsuccessful up to the Supreme Court. The final decision by the Supreme Court was on 28.01.2013. Petitioner thereafter filed a representation on 27.02.2023, seeking grant of compensation pension under Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

3. The representation of the petitioner has been rejected solely on the ground of it having being filed after a lapse 12 years. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that it is a settled position that pension cannot be denied if otherwise admissible, on account of the fact that delay has occasioned in demand of pension. He submits that since the petitioner is seeking compensation allowance and pension, mere delay in filing the representation should not be a ground for denying the same.

4. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing for respondents.

5. Learned counsel for respondents under instructions submits that the competent authority shall dispose of the representation on merits.

6. In view of the above, the impugned order 21.03.2023 is set aside. Respondents are directed to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 27.02.2023 and pass a speaking order on the merits of the same within a period of eight weeks from today. Representation shall not be rejected solely on the ground of delay.

7. Petition is disposed of in the above terms. It is clarified that this Court has neither considered nor commented upon the merits of the claim of the petitioner and the representation be decided without being influenced by anything stated in this order on merits.

8. Order dasti under signature of the Court Master.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top