Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench: New Delhi O.A. No.935/2024 This the 23rd day of February, 2026 Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)

Sher Singh S/o Late Shri Tej Singh R/o Flat No. 408, Plot No. 39B, Sector 6, DWARKA, New Delhi - 110075 …Applicant (Applicant in person)

Versus

1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Through Chief Secretary, Delhi Delhi Sectt. IP Estate, Delhi – 110002

2. Commissioner of Police Delhi, PHQ, Jai Singh Road, Delhi – 110001

3. Deputy Commissioner of Police

7th BN DAP, Malviya Nagar Complex, New Delhi - 110017 …Respondents (By Advocate : Mr. Y P Singh)

ORDER (ORAL)

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

“a. Pass an appropriate order or direction quashing the impugned order dated 08.08.2019 (Annexure A1) issued by the Respondent No. 3, Order dated 13.07.2020 (Annexure A2) as well as Order dated 29.09.2020 (Annexure A3) issued by the office of Respondent No. 2; and allow 2/3rd of his compensation pension and 2/3rd of gratuity that may have been due to him at the time of dismissal, as per provisions of Rule 41 of CCS (Pension)

Rules, 1972.

b. Direct the respondents to grant compassionate allowance from the date of dismissal i.e. 27.08.2018 with all consequential benefits/arrears along with interest at the rate applicable for GPF amount as per exhisting Rules and government orders.

c. The cost of the application be provided for; and d. To pass any such order/orders as may be deemed fit and proper by the Hon'ble Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The applicant, appearing in person, has assailed the impugned order whereby the respondents have rejected his claim for grant of compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “CCS (Pension) Rules”).

2.1 The applicant submits that the impugned order dated 07.08.2019 rejecting his claim for compassionate allowance is arbitrary, discriminatory and unsustainable in law. The relevant portion of the same reads as under:-

“The Guiding Principles for the Grant of Compassionate Allowance is to consider the aspects such as the misconduct of the applicant, the kind of service rendered by the individual before his/ her dismissal/removal from service and his/her family liabilities. The EX. SI has not been found honest/devoted/sincere towards his duties and was convicted for an offence of custodial death which falls in the category of gravest act of misconduct a police officer can possibly commit. The other aspects of the case such as financial condition/family liabilities etc. stand overshadowed by the gravest act by the Ex. SI (Exe) before his dismissal from service.”

2.2 He contends that though departmental proceedings culminated in the penalty of dismissal from service, Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules does not create an absolute bar for grant of compassionate allowance in cases of dismissal or removal. The Rule itself contemplates that in deserving cases, where the circumstances warrant, the competent authority may sanction compassionate allowance up to two-thirds of the pension or gratuity which would have been admissible had the applicant retired on compensation pension.

2.3 The applicant assails the findings recorded by the competent authority while rejecting his claim. He submits that the authority has merely reiterated the grounds of dismissal and has not independently considered whether the case warranted grant of compassionate allowance. According to him, the reasoning is based on surmises and conjectures, without due consideration of relevant material, including his long and otherwise unblemished service record. He draws our attention to Ground No. 4.2, as urged in the O.A., pertaining to the ACRs, which reads as under:–

“4.2 That the petitioner, during his entire service of more than 30 years in Delhi Police, earned 105 Commendation Certificates/Cards i.e. 3 from Additional Comm