W.P.(C) 664/2021Page 1 of 19

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Reserved on:

April 25, 2022

Pronounced on: May 13, 2022

+

W.P.(C) 664/2021

GAURI SHANKAR

.....Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Amit George & Mr. Anmol

Acharya, Advocates

Versus

CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE & ANR. ..... Respondents

Through:

Mr.Shashank Bajpai, Senior Panel

Counsel with Mr.Shubham Singh,

Advocate & Mr. Vinod Tiwari,

Government Pleader

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN

JUDGMENT

SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J

1.

Petitioner claims to have been recruited on the post of Constable in

the year 1994 by respondent No.1-Central Reserve Police Force (henceforth

referred to as the “CRPF”) through respondent No.2/ Union of India, which

is under the aegis of Ministry of Home Affairs. The role of petitioner has

been to assist the States / Territories in carrying out policing operations for

maintaining the rule of law and public order in the country and to assist in

counter-insurgency operations.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001852

W.P.(C) 664/2021Page 2 of 19

2.

According to petitioner, on 17.03.2003, an argument erupted between

the petitioner and his superiors in relation to a training exercise undertaken

by petitioner, subsequent to which he was suspended from service on the

said day, followed by an enquiry and further, dismissal from service on

20.08.2003 from respondent No.1/CRPF. The appeal preferred by the

petitioner against the aforesaid dismissal order dated 20.08.2003 was

rejected by the appellate authority on 24.12.2003. Even the revision

preferred against the aforesaid rejection order dated 24.12.2003, also stood

dismissed on 12.05.2004 by the competent authority of respondent

No.1/CRPF.

3.

Petitioner further claims to have invoked writ jurisdiction of the

Allahabad High Court against the aforesaid order dated 12.05.2004 which

stood dismissed lacking territorial jurisdiction. Thereafter, petitioner

invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court against the dismissal orders dated

20.08.2003, 24.12.2003 and 12.05.2004 (in W.P. (C) No. 13526/2006),

which stood dismissed as withdrawn on 17.03.2016 with liberty to the

petitioner to file a representation before the competent authority for grant of

compassionate allowance etc. and further direction to respondent No.1 to

consider petitioner‟s representation as per law.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001852

W.P.(C) 664/2021Page 3 of 19

4.

Subsequent upon petitioner‟s making representation, respondent No.1

vide Order dated 15.06.2016 sanctioned compassionate allowance

equivalent to 2/3^rd of the amount towards minimum pension in terms of

Rule 41 of CCS Rules payable from 21.08.2003, acknowledging the

hardship faced by the petitioner. A copy of the same is said to have

internally transmitted between different departments of respondent

No.1/CRPF, however, petitioner received a letter dated 02.12.2016, copy

marked to others, from a department stating doubt on petitioner‟s eligibility

to grant of compensation pension within the rubric of compassionate

allowance and entitling him eligible for only 2/3^rd of service gratuity.

Reliance was placed upon Rule 49 of the CCS Rules therein to state that

compassionate allowance could be granted only if the qualifying service of

10 years had been undergone, whereas the service duration of petitioner was

9 years 1 month and 8 days only and so, pension could not be granted to him

and only 2/3^rd service gratuity could be granted.

5.

According to petitioner, thereafter a modification order dated

09.11.2017; letter dated 09.05.2018 and communication dated February,

2019 were issued by the competent authorities of respondent No.1,

subsequent to which letter dated 22.09.2020 was received by the petitioner

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001852

W.P.(C) 66