Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi OA No. 2998/2017 This the 01^st day of December, 2025 Hon’ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)

Hon’ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member(A)

Ranjeet Singh Grp. C Ex HC in Delhi Police PIS No 29700043 Aged about 67 Years S/o Late Sh Lalla Singh R/o C/o F-1 Ashoka Police Lines.

Kautilya Marg New Delhi-21 ..Applicant (By Advocates: Mr. Anil Singal)

Versus

1. Commissioner of Police PHQ IP Estate New Delhi

2. Addl DCP (New Delhi Distt.)

Sansad Marg, New Delhi ... Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. Ashish Rai, Mr. Amit Anand, Mr. Abhishek Raj, Mr. Jagdish Chandra)

O R D E R(Oral)

Hon’ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member(J)

The applicant has filed this OA seeking the following reliefs:-

“1. To call for records of the case and quash/set aside the impugned order dated 19.12.2016 and direct the respondents to grant Compassionate Allowance to the applicant w.e.f.

23.09.2005 at the earliest.

2. To award costs in favour of the applicant and pass any other order or orders which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem just and equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The facts in brief are that the applicant joined Delhi Police in 1970. He availed casual leave and thereafter did not rejoin duty. Subsequently, he was dismissed from service vide order dated 23.09.2005 on the charge of unauthorized absence. The applicant, after learning that an employee dismissed from service can still be considered for compassionate allowance under Rule 41, he submitted a representation in January 2016 asserting that there is no earning member in his family and that he has no current income. The representation was rejected on 23.02.2016. The applicant thereafter approached this Tribunal by filing OA No. 2958/2016, in which vide order dated 03.08.2016 the respondents were directed to reconsider the matter and pass a reasoned and speaking order. The applicant contends that despite such direction, the rejection was repeated vide the impugned order dated 19.12.2016 without any meaningful consideration of his personal, social or financial circumstances.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that the applicant had put in more than 32 years of service and had earned promotions during his tenure, and therefore his case merited sympathetic consideration. It is further submitted that the applicant did not rejoin after availing casual leave on account of ill health and psychological distress, and therefore the competent authority ought not to have mechanically denied compassionate allowance. It is urged that the impugned order merely records the history of misconduct and does not reflect the statutory parameters that are required to be evaluated under Rule 41.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant places reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Smt. Usha Devi v. UOI (W.P.(C) 5687/2024) and Smt. Shiksha v. UOI (W.P.(C) 7067/2019). In Usha Devi, while discussing the jurisprudence under Rule

41, the Hon’ble High Court observed as under:-

“the determination of a claim based under Rule 41 will necessarily have to be sieved through an evaluation based on a series of distinct considerations”

Further in Para 27 of the Judgment, the Hon’ble High Court has held as under:-

“27. xxxxx the misconduct which led to the dismissal or removal of the employee from service is entirely irrelevant while examining the employee’s right to compassionate allowance, except to the extent of ascertaining whether the misconduct fell within one of the five categorized misconducts xxxxxx”.

He submits that The Court also held that once the employee has already suffered dismissal from service, the past delinquency cannot be a ground to deny compassionate allowance.

5. Similarly, in Shiksha (supra), in Paras 15, 18 and

19, the Hon’ble High Court held as under:-

“15. We have gone through the decisions relied upon by petitioner‟s counsel in support of her case. Reliance is placed upon Hon‟ble Supreme Court‟s decision in Mahinder Dutt Sharma (Supr