Compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 is not a vested statutory right but a discretionary benefit. Writ jurisdiction will not be exercised to revive stale claims after an extraordinary, unexplained delay, even if the lower authority's reasoning regarding statutory time-bars contains interpretive errors.

BEFORE

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

ORDER

Date : 21.05.2026

Heard Ms. Ramengmawii, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Caroline K. Lungawipuii, learned Govt. Advocate for the State respondents.

2. By way of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner calls in question the Order dated 28.07.2025 issued by the respondent No. 4, whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate allowance came to be rejected.

3. The foundational facts, shorn of unnecessary details, are that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the Indian Reserve Battalion vide Order dated 14.07.1994. After rendering approximately twelve years of service, the petitioner was deputed to undergo pre-induction training at the CIJW School, Vairengte. During the course of such training, the petitioner applied for casual leave for two days on account of personal reasons. According to the petitioner, such request was not considered, following which the petitioner left for Khawzawl without authorization. It appears that, at the relevant point of time, 28 constables of the 2nd IR Battalion undergoing the said training had similarly left the training camp area and were treated as deserters, the petitioner being one amongst them. Subsequently, the petitioner along with 28 other constables was reinstated into service with effect from 16.01.2009. However, thereafter, vide Order dated 27.08.2009, the petitioner was removed from service.

4. The case of the petitioner is that despite removal from service, no compassionate allowance as contemplated under the applicable pension rules was granted. After a considerable lapse of time, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 25.01.2025 claiming compassionate allowance. The said claim came to be rejected vide communication dated 04.02.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted another representation dated 28.02.2025 seeking reconsideration. As no decision was taken thereupon, the petitioner approached this Court earlier by filing WP(C) No. 71/2025. This Court, without entering into the merits of the controversy, disposed of the said writ petition at the motion stage by directing the competent authority to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 28.02.2025 in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, the respondent authorities passed the impugned order dated 28.07.2025 rejecting the claim once again, primarily on the premise that the claim had been raised after approximately sixteen years from the date of removal and was, therefore, not entertainable under Rule 41 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules of 2021”). The operative portion of the impugned communication reads as follows:

“According to CCS (Pension Rule) 1972, Rule 41 (1) (2) (4) & (5), where an order of dismissal or removal from service was issued after the date of commencement of Central Civil Service (Pension) Rule 1972, authority shall take a decision and make sanction in this regard within three months…

Therefore, as you have made claim for compassionate allowance only after a lapse of 16 years from the date of dismissal and after your claim have been carefully examined by the concerned authority of PHQ, you are again informed that your claim of compassionate allowance cannot be sustained.”

5. Assailing the aforesaid