IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

225 Date of decision: 10.03.2025 BHUPINDER SINGH ......Petitioner VERSUS DIRECTOR GENERAL, CRPF AND OTHERS .......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ *****

Present: - Mr. Rajeev Anand, Advocate with Mr. Aryan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Amrita Singh, Advocate for the respondents-Union of India.

*****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order of May, 2019 whereby the claim of the petitioner for compassionate allowance has been rejected by the respondents.

2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the petitioner was removed from the service on account of certain proven charges of misconduct after having rendered 17 years and 05 months of service. He contends that Rule 41 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as Pension Rules, 1972) provide for release of compassionate allowance in favour of an employee who is dismissed or removed from service. The relevant extract thereof reads thus:-

“41. Compassionate allowance:-

A government servant who is dismissed or removed from service shall forfeit his pension and gratuity:

Provided that the authority competent to dismiss or remove him from service may if the case is deserving of special consideration, sanction a compassionate allowance not exceeding two-third of pension or gratuity or which would have been admissible to him if he had retired on compensation pension.

(2) A compassionate allowance sanctioned under the provision to sub-rule(1) shall not be less than {amount of Rupees (three hundred and sixty (five)

per mensem}”

3. He submits that the aforesaid Rule 41 of the Pension Rules, 1972 has been interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of “Mahinder Dutt Sharma versus Union of India and others” reported as AIR 2014 Supreme Court 2009. The relevant extract thereof reads thus:-

“13. We are of the considered view that the adjudication by the courts below with reference to Rule 41 of the Pension Rules, 1972 is clearly misdirected. The Rule itself contemplates payment of compassionate allowance to an employee who has been dismissed or removed from service. Under the punishment rules, the above punishments are of the severest magnitude. These punishments can be inflicted only for an act of extreme wrongdoing. It is on account of such wrongdoing, that the employee concerned has already been subjected to the severest form of punishment. Sometimes even for being incorrigible. Despite that, the Rule contemplates sanction of a compassionate allowance of up to two-thirds of the pension or gratuity (or both), which would have been drawn by the punished employee if he had retired on compassionate pension. The entire consideration up to the present juncture, by the courts below, is directly or indirectly aimed at determining whether the delinquency committed by the appellant was sufficient and appropriate for the infliction of the punishment of dismissal from service. This determination is relevant for examining the veracity of the punishment order itself. That, however, is not the scope of the exercise contemplated in the present consideration. Insofar as the determination of the admissibility of the benefits contemplated under Rule 41 of the Pension Rules, 1972 is concerned, the same has to be by accepting that the delinquency committed by the punished employee was of a magnitude which is sufficient for the imposition of the most severe punishments. As in the present case, unauthorised and wilful absence of the appellant for a period of 320 days has resulted in the passing of the order of dismissal from service. The punishment inflicted on the appellant has been found to be legitimate and genuine as also commensurate to the delinquency of the appellant. The issue now is the evaluation of claim of the punished employee under Rule 41 of the Pension Rules, 1972.

14. In our considered view, the determinat