$~99 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision:20^th August, 2024 + W.P.(C) 13096/2022 DR VIJAY KUMAR SHARMA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Meet Malhotra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhey Narula, Advocate versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr. A.K. De, Advocate CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

JUDGMENT

JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)

1. This writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of order dated 08.05.2020 by which the Respondent has rejected the claim of the Petitioner for compassionate allowance under Rule 32 of the General Insurance (Employees’) Pension Scheme, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1995 Scheme’). Direction is sought to the Respondent to award maximum compassionate allowance as permissible under the 1995 Scheme as also to release the other dues payable to the Petitioner as enumerated in the writ petition.

2. Factual matrix to the extent necessary, shorn of unnecessary details is that Petitioner joined the Respondent in August, 1985 and served for 26 years. According to the Petitioner, he had an exemplary and unblemished service and his exceptional performance was recorded and recognized from Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAUSHAL time to time. In 2006, during his tenure as Divisional Manager, Panipat, Petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 31.05.2006 levelling allegations relating to 05 motor claims and 01 marine claim. Services of the Petitioner were terminated vide order dated 13.05.2011 and the appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority by an order dated 05.01.2012. Aggrieved with the said orders, Petitioner filed W.P.(C) 11323/2015 in this Court and vide judgment dated 01.02.2018, the impugned orders were quashed with a direction to the Disciplinary Authority to inflict penalty at par with penalty inflicted on other officers who were party to disbursal of accident claims as in the Court’s opinion, the penalty of ‘removal from service’ was grossly disproportionate and shocked the conscience of the Court. The judgment was assailed by the Respondent before the Division Bench in LPA No.113/2018 and vide order dated 12.11.2018, the Division Bench converted the penalty of removal from service to compulsory retirement with all consequential benefits, in accordance with the Rules of the Respondent on the ground that Petitioner had served the Respondent for over two decades and this was the first instance of misconduct in his entire career.

3. Petitioner avers that during the service, he was diagnosed with a serious heart ailment and had undergone multiple surgeries and 04 stents were placed. His request for reimbursement of medical expenses was also pending. Having no option, Petitioner filed an application being CM APPL. No.42708/2019 in LPA No.113/2018 seeking directions for release of his outstanding dues. When the application came up for hearing before the Division Bench on 10.01.2020, Respondent undertook to pay the dues within 10 days and the Court permitted the Petitioner to make a Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAUSHAL representation which would be considered in terms of parameters set out in the decision of the Supreme Court in Mahinder Dutt Sharma v. Union of India and Others, (2014) 11 SCC 684. If the representation was made, the Respondent was directed to take a decision thereon and communicate the same to the Petitioner.

4. Petitioner thereafter received a total sum of Rs.11,10,503/- but without any break up and according to the Petitioner, full payment was not released and the deductions, which the Petitioner later learnt, were illegal. At the same time, Petitioner’s request for compassionate allowance was rejected vide order dated 08.05.2020.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner assails the impugned order dated 31.01.2020 on multiple grounds. It is argued that the impugned decision is in the teeth of the judgment of the Division Bench in