Compassionate allowances must consider the overall service and financial condition of the dismissed employee, as per established guidelines.

ORDER

By Hon’’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J):

In the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant seeks the following reliefs:-

“a) Allow this Original Application of the applicant;

b) Award the costs;

c) issue appropriate direction or directions or orders to:

(i) quash the impugned order dated 14.10.2020 passed by respondent No.3 – Commissioner of Police, Police Control Room, Delhi (Annexure A-1);

(ii) direct the respondents to set-aside/re-call the order dated 14.10.2020 and keeping in view of the long unblemished service of 24 years of the applicant, his case may be considered for granting the compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and Government of India Guidelines dated 22.4.1940.

(d) grant any other relief as this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit and proper and in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”

2. Brief facts of the case as narrated by learned counsel for the applicant are as under:-

2.1 The applicant, a reserved category employee from a rural background, had dedicated 24 years of service to the Delhi Police. However, his career was cut short when he was dismissed from service for unauthorized absence. This dismissal was challenged by the applicant before various legal forums.

2.2 Initially, the applicant filed OA 1407/2015, seeking to quash the appellate order, penalty order, and findings dated 14.8.2014, 16.8.2013, and 24.6.2013, respectively. He also sought reinstatement in service with consequential benefits. The applicant's case was built around the fact that he had submitted medical papers from Safdarjang Hospital, Delhi, to explain his unauthorized absence. However, the department questioned the authenticity of these papers. The matter eventually reached the Hon’ble High Court, which directed the respondents to consider the applicant's claim for compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of CCS Pension Rules. This direction was issued in Writ Petition (Civil) No.5024 of 2019. However, the respondents failed to comply with the Hon’ble High Court's direction and rejected the applicant's claim for compassionate allowance, relying on an unrelated judgment. This rejection prompted the applicant to file OA No.1049 of 2020. Thereafter, this Tribunal allowed OA No.1049 of 2020, setting aside the impugned order and directing the respondents to pass a fresh order within 4 weeks. However, the respondents again erred by applying an unrelated judgment and rejected the applicant's case for compassionate allowance vide impugned order dated 14.10.2020.

2.3 Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court's judgment in Mahinder Dutt Sharma vs. Union of India & ors. reported in AIR 2014 SC 2019 has established clear parameters for granting compassionate allowance. The applicant's case falls outside these parameters, making him eligible for compassionate allowance. In light of these developments, the applicant is seeking justice and urging the Tribunal to direct the respondents to grant compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of CCS Pension Rules.

2.4 In support of his case, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the following documents and case laws :-

(i) CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 ;

(ii) Mahinder Dutt Sharma Vs. Union of India & ors. reported in AIR 2014 SC 2019;

(iii) Writ Petition (C) NO.2461/2019 titled DTC vs. Jagdish Chander

(iv) Rajinder Kumar vs. State of Haryana reported in 2016 (15) SCC 693

(v) Pepsu RTC vs. Rawel Singh reported in 2008 (4) SCC 42;

(vi) Ex ASI Shadi Ram vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & ors. reported in 2008 SSC OnLine Del1396.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the present Original Application as well as the grounds stated by learned counsel for the applicant and relied upon the averments mad