Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 7640
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mr. B. Anand, Member (A)
Ram Lal Meena – Appellant
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
O.A. No. 2389/2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Piyush Sharma, Mr. Aditya Dikshit
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajpal Singh
The court held that prior punishments for unauthorized absence do not preclude granting compassionate allowance if conduct does not meet criteria for dishonesty or moral turpitude.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - CCS Pension Rules, 1972 - Compassionate allowance - Applicant, an Ex-constable dismissed for unauthorized absence, seeks compassionate allowance after dismissal; while previous requests were rejected, this Tribunal directs reconsideration based on financial hardship and relevant judgments regarding eligibility and misconduct categorization. (Paras 6, 23-26)
(B) The court examines five categories of misconduct from precedent judgments to assess eligibility for compassionate allowance, noting conduct must not meet criteria for dishonesty or moral turpitude. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The applicant's dismissal stemmed from repeated unauthorized absence leading to legal challenges concerning compassionate allowance based on subsequent financial hardship and family circumstances.
Findings of Court:
Circumstances do not justify prior rejections of compassionate allowance; respondent's conclusions lack sufficient grounds when the applicant possesses a below-poverty-line certificate.
Issues: The key questions involve the appropriateness of dismissal for authorized absence and whether the applicant's prior punishments should exempt him from further penalties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court establishes that punishments already served should not continually impact assessments for compassionate allowance, supported by legal precedent deeming absence without moral turpitude warranting reconsideration.
Result: Application allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts surrounding the applicant's dismissal and prior attempts for allowance. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments concerning wrongful classification of absence and financial hardship. (Para 8 , 10 , 12) |
| 3. court's observations on precedent cases and misunderstanding of the applicant's situation. (Para 9 , 11 , 19) |
| 4. court's reasoning on compassionate allowances not hinging on prior misconduct. (Para 22 , 24) |
| 5. final order directing reconsideration for compassionate allowance. (Para 27 , 29) |
ORDER (ORAL)
The brief undisputed facts of the case are that the applicant, an Ex-constable of Delhi Police with about fifteen years of service record was terminated from the service by the respondents vide order no. 1240-1380/HAP-III Bn. DAP on 08.02.1991 and reinstated by an order no. 3771-3800/HAP/III Bn. DAP dated 07.02.1996, on charge of absenting himself on more than 72 occasions, totaling 464 days of absence.
2. The applicant appears to have been a habitual absentee during his service and the respondents after having given several opportunities for mending his ways, finally passed an order dated 21.05.2004 dismissing him from service. The dismissal order dated 21.05.2004 was also upheld by the Appellate Authority vide its order dated 31.08.2004. The applicant aggrieved by the dismissal order passed by the respondents initially approached this Tribunal, which had dismissed the OA by order dated 21.08.2006. The applicant’s subsequent appeal before the Hon’ble High Court was rejected by the order dated 03.04.2014 and the ultimate SLP filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was also dismissed on 03.07.2014 bringing the curtains down on this entire episode of his unauthorised absence resulting in dismissal. Thereafter, he moved a mercy petition before the Hon’ble Lt. Governor of Delhi, which was also dismissed on 21.03.2016.
3. Thereafter, the applicant applied to the respondents for grant of compassionate allowance vide his letter dated 05.09.2016, which they rejected by their order dated 19.10.2016 and when the applicant filed an appeal dated 16.08.2017, that was also rejected by the appellate authority amongst the respondents vide order dated 16.08.2017.
4. Aggrieved by the order of the respondents in rejecting his request for grant of compassionate allowance, the applicant filed the first round of litigation by way of OA No. 4043/2017 in Central Administrative Tribunal against the orders rejecting his request for compassionate allowance issued by the respondents dated 19.10.2016 and 16.08.2017. The Tribunal vide its order dated 08.03.2019 set aside the above two orders and directed the respondents for reconsideration of the request of the applicant. The applicant was orally informed by the respondents to prepare a Electronic Clearing System (ECS) Mandate Form for payment of compassionate allowance, which he did so on 17.05.2019. However, instead of paying him compassionate allowance through ECS, the respondents rejected the representation of the applicant vide order dated 06.06.2019 forcing the applicant to file another OA No. 2484/2019, which is the second round of litigation, seeking compassionate allowance. This time also the Tribunal set aside the order dated 06.06.2019 passed by the respondents and once again directed them for reconsideration of the matter vide its order/judgment dated 26.02.2020. The respondents once again rejected the request of the applicant for grant of compassionate allowance by their order dated 17.04.2020.
5. Aggrieved by the order of rejection dated 17.04.2020 passed by the respondents, the applicant filed Contempt Petition No. 100/73/2021 in OA No. 2482/2019, which was also closed by the Tribunal on 19.03.2021 with liberty to the applicant to challenge the order dated 17.04.2020 of the respondents in a separate proceeding.
6. This time again the respondents rejected the request for compassionate allowance ordered by the Tribunal in its judgment dated 26.02.2020 resulting in the applicant filin
