A delinquent employee cannot claim compassionate benefits post-dismissal for misconduct; prior judgments establish res judicata.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 8^th day of December, 2025 The petitioners are widow and son of the deceased delinquent employee of the Railway Protection Force. The petitioners are before this Court aggrieved by Ext.P19 proceedings dated 18.07.2023 issued by the 2^nd respondent denying the claim of granting family pension or compassionate employment to them.

2. The petitioners submitted that while working as Inspector of Police, Railway Protection Force, the delinquent employee was placed under suspension on 17.11.1995. Ext.P7 Charge sheet dated 15.12.1995 was served on the employee. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer submitted Ext.P8 Enquiry Report on 01.02.1997. Ext.P1 order of penalty dated 03.10.1997 was imposed on the petitioner, dismissing him from service.

3. Though the delinquent employee filed Ext.P10 Appeal and Ext.P12 Revision Petition against the order of dismissal, the Appeal and Revision were rejected as per Exts.P11 and P13 orders.

4. The petitioners state that the delinquent employee thereafter approached this Court filing O.P.No.13882 of 1998 . The said original petition was dismissed as per Ext.P2 judgment holding that in disciplinary proceedings sufficiency of evidence is not a matter for this Court to consider in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

During this period the delinquent employee passed away. 5. Thereafter, the petitioners filed W.A.No.1111 of

2009 challenging Ext.P2 judgment. The Writ Appeal was dismissed by this Court, upholding the findings in the Original Petition, as per Ext.P3 judgment dated 19.06.2009.

6. Subsequently, the petitioners preferred a representation seeking compassionate allowance. The petitioners were informed that the said request would not be considered. The petitioners thereupon preferred a representation dated 21.01.2023. As the representation was not considered, the petitioners filed W.P.(C) No.12860 of 2013. This Court directed the respondents to consider Ext.P10 representation therein and pass fresh orders therein.

7. Aggrieved by the order passed therein, the 1^st petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.20350 of 2013. This Court held that showing compassion in the circumstances of the case would tantamount to misplace the sympathy and therefore, this Court will not be justified in compelling the respondents to dole out public money to an absolutely ineligible person. With the said observations, the writ petition was dismissed.

8. The petitioners have thereafter filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P16 Circular dated 04.11.2008. The petitioners would submit that making certain employees ineligible for compassionate allowance and compassionate appointment, is highly illegal and arbitrary. Ext.P16 Circular cannot stand the scrutiny of law. Ext.P16 Circular is liable to be quashed and consequently, the petitioners should be declared as eligible for compassionate allowance.

9. Deputy Solicitor General of India entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. The Deputy Solicitor General of India submitted that the issues raised by the petitioners stand concluded by Exts.P2, P3 and P15 judgments. The petitioners are trying to re-agitate and get set apart the dismissal order imposed on the delinquent in the year 1997.

10. The petitioners are trying to challenge Ext.P16 Circular holding that it is arbitrary. Ext.P16 Circular is not at all arbitrary. It only makes certain dishonest category of persons ineligible for compassionate allowance. It cannot be said that the provisions so made are unjustified.

11. Deputy Solicitor General of India further submitted that if the intention behind challenging Ext.P16 Circular is to get penalty order reversed or to get compassion