Compassionate allowance is a privilege requiring assessment of the entire service record and financial hardship, not merely based on misconduct leading to dismissal.

ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :

In the instant OA filed under Section – 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“(i) to set aside order dated 01.07.2020 passed by the respondent and to provide all the benefits i.e. salary till the date of death of Constable Rakesh Kumar and thereafter the pension facilities and service to one of the legal heirs on the compassionate ground with immediate effect.

(ii) to pass cost of litigation in favour of the applicant.

(iii) Any other or further relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the applicant and against the respondents.”

2. Narrating the facts of the present case, learned counsel for the applicant stated as under:

2.1. The applicant, widow of Late Ct. Rakesh Kumar, a deceased employee of Delhi Police, has filed the present O.A. praying for the afore-quoted reliefs. Late Ct. Rakesh Kumar was terminated on 05.08.2004 while he was seriously ill, and he expired on 28.01.2009 without contesting his termination.

2.2. Thereafter, the applicant approached the respondents for pension and compassionate employment, but was denied relief. She then filed OA No. 1163/2015 challenging the termination of her deceased husband, which was partly allowed by this Tribunal on 19.12.2019. The Tribunal directed the respondents to consider the applicant's representation. Despite making a representation to the respondents on 10.02.2020, the applicant was denied the relief prayed for. The respondents instead passed an arbitrary order on 01.07.2020, which was against the principles of natural justice. The applicant approached the respondents' office several times after April 2022, but was again denied relief. Hence, this O.A.

3. Supporting the case of the applicant, learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant's husband, Late Rakesh Kumar, was illegally terminated from service on 08.08.2004 while he was seriously ill. The punishment was disproportionate to the alleged offense, and the respondents failed to provide a reasoned order. The termination was in violation of the principles of natural justice, and the applicant, as the widow, has the right to contest it. The applicant is now facing financial distress, being an illiterate housewife with no source of income. The deceased left behind six unemployed legal heirs, and the respondents ignored his 11 years of good service.

4. Relying upon the averments made in the counter affidavit, learned counsel for the respondents stated as under:

4.1. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the termination of Late Ct. Rakesh Kumar on 05.08.2004 was justified due to his habitual absence and indiscipline. He stated that the respondents did not grant compassionate allowance to the applicant as the deceased's case was not covered under the guidelines laid down in Mahinder Dutt Sharma vs. Union of India (2014) 11 SCC 684. In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that compassionate allowance is not a matter of right, but rather a privilege granted by the employer out of compassion. The Hon’ble Court also laid down guidelines for granting compassionate allowance, including the requirement that the employee's conduct should not have been such as to disentitle him to the privilege. In the present case, learned counsel argued that the deceased's habitual absence and indiscipline made him ineligible for compassionate allowance. A speaking order was passed on 01.07.2020, after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, and taking into account the judgment of the Hon'ble Tribunal dated 19.12.2019.

4.2. Furthermore, learned counsel argued that the present OA is barred by limitation as the impugned order is dated 01.07.2020. Overall, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the action of the respondents is legal and justified, and the reliefs sought by the applicant shall not be gr