Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Kamlesh Devi vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi Through on 12 May, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A.No.1731/2011 Thursday, this the 12th day of May 2011 Honble Shri M.L. Chauhan, Member (J) Kamlesh Devi Wo late Const. Shiv Rattan PIS No.28750351 r/o House No.190 Vill Maidan Garhi, New Delhi ..Applicant (By Advocate: Shri Anil Singal) Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi through 1. Commissioner of Police Police Head Quarter, IP Estate New Delhi 2. DCP (1st BN, DAP) Through Commissioner of Police PHQ, IP Estate, New Delhi ..Respondents O R D E R (ORAL)
This is a third round of litigation. Earlier, the applicant has filed OA-1833/2008 against the order dated 27.4.2007 whereby the case for grant of compassionate allowance was denied on the ground that the husband of the applicant was dismissed from service and he did not apply for compassionate allowance. It is only after the death of the husband that the widow has applied for compassionate allowance. This Tribunal vide the order dated 9.4.2009 disposed of the OA with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the widow of the deceased for compassionate allowance in the light of the decision of the High Court and also the decision of this Tribunal in Neelam Singh v. Union of India (OA-1782/2005) decided on 4.5.2007 by passing a speaking order.
2. Pursuant to the order passed by this Tribunal aforesaid, the respondents granted the compassionate allowance to the applicant vide the order dated 11.6.2009 without interest.
3. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the applicant again filed OA 3670/2010 before this Tribunal. This Tribunal vide the order dated 6.12.2010 quashed the order dated 8.4.2010 whereby the prayer of the applicant for grant of interest was rejected, with a direction to consider the claim of the applicant for interest on compassionate allowance in accordance with rules on the subject and also keeping in view the decision of the High Court referred to in paragraphs 10 and 12 of Tribunals order dated 9.4.2009 and take a decision in the matter and communicate the decision to the applicant by issuing a reasoned and speaking order.
4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the respondents have passed a speaking order thereby again rejecting the claim of the applicant. At this stage, it will be useful to quote the impugned order in extenso, which thus reads:
As regards decisions of Honble High Court in case of ASI Shadi Ram Vs. GNCT of Delhi, the Honble Court has given judgment and concluded as under:-
For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned judgement of the Tribunal dated 24.05.2007 passed in the OA number 1005/06 is set aside. The decision of the Competent Authority dated 24th of February 2006, is quashed. The Competent Authority is directed to reconsider the petitioners application dated 16.02.2005 seeking the grant of Compassionate Allowance in the light of the provisions of Rule 41 of CCS (Pension) Rules, the Guidelines dated 22.04.1940, the observations and the conclusions reached by this Court, and to pass a speaking order thereon within one month from today. It should take in independent decision in the matter, without being influenced by any observations of the Tribunal on the merits of the aforesaid application of the petitioner. In compliance of the above Court judgment, the concerned Head of office had granted the compassionate allowance without paying any interest. No interest was given as Honble Court had not ordered for the same.
The referred case of Neelam Singh W/o Late Shri Gurdeep Singh, Ex. Diesel Assistant Loco Shed, Northern Railway pertains to Railway, hence no comments can be offered. But in the matter, the Honble Court has given judgment as under:-
Respondents are directed to enforce their own order, granting Compassionate Allowance and gratuity to applicant. As a consequence thereof, the same may be paid to her from the due date will all arrears along with simple interests of 12% per annum, within period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
In the matter of Sukha Singh Vs UOI & others in WP (Civil) No.11646/2009, his appeal to the appellate authority was rejected. The Honble Court decided the appeal and given his judgment as under:-
In our view, compassionate allowance is not a matter of right. In cases where a person is dismissed or removed not on account of serious misconduct relating to service conditions and the circumstances also show that he has no means of livelihood or to survive, the authorities may consider him giving a compassionate pension, if the case deserves a special consideration, having regard to the entire service record. The Petitioner in the present case has been dismissed on account of embezzlement of Government funds, a serious misconduct relating to the service. Besides his entire service record has also not been satisfactory, as he had been habitually absenting, resulting in being dealt with leaves without pay. The Petitioner has been litigating right from 1984 for this allowance. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has been able to survive for 25 years without the compassionate allowance. 14. for the reasons aforesaid mentioned, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 29th November 2007.
Keeping in view the above discussion of Honble High Courts and as per rules on the subject you are not entitled for claiming interest on the compassionate allowance. Moreover, the Honble CAT in judgment dated 09.04.2009 in OA No.1833/2008 has uttered nothing to grant interest on the compassionate allowance. Hence, your request for the grant of interest on compassionate allowance could not be acceded to and rejected.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant at the admission stage. I am of the view that no infirmity can be found in the impugned order (Annexure A-1). At the outset, it may be stated that there are no statutory rules, which provide that interest has to be paid in respect of compassionate allowance, as against Rule 87 of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, which provides for interest on delayed payment of gratuity, which has been authorized after three months from the date when its payment became due and further the instruction has been issued to the effect that where the payment on gratuity is delayed, the penal interest shall be paid applicable to GPF deposits.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has not shown any statutory rule or instruction, which stipulates that for delayed payment of compassionate allowance, interest is to be paid. Thus, whether the interest has to be paid or not in particular case has to be decided by the Court judiciously, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned counsel for the applicant while drawing my attention to the order dated 6.12.2010 passed in OA 3670/2010 has argued that this Tribunal has directed the respondents to consider the claim of the applicant for interest keeping in view the High Courts decision as well as Tribunals order but the respondents have passed the impugned order ignoring such mandate.
7. I have given due consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and I am not impressed with the submissions so made for more than one reason, as the Tribunal has not given any specific direction that in case the applicant is held entitled for compassionate allowance, such allowance be paid along with interest. At this stage, it will be useful to quote the operative portion of the order passed by the Tribunal in OA-1833/2008, which thus reads:
12. Resultantly, OA is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to reconsider the claim of the widow of the deceased for compassionate allowance in the light of the decisions of the High Court and also the decisions of this Tribunal, referred to above, by passing a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
8. As can be seen from the portion as quoted above, the direction was given to the respondents to consider the case of the applicant in the light of the decision of the High Court as well as decision of this Tribunal in Neelam Singh (supra). Admittedly, the respondents have considered the case of the applicant for grant of compassionate allowance in terms of the aforesaid decision and in fact the compassionate allowance has already been granted to the applicant. Further question, which requires consideration is whether direction given by this Tribunal in the case of Neelam Singh (supra) that 12% simple interest on arrears with due date should also be made applicable in the instant case. For that purpose, it will be useful to quote the operative portion of the judgment of this Tribunal in Neelam Singh (supra), which thus reads:-
9. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, the grounds taken by respondents to deny applicant her legitimate right accrued to her by way of an order passed under Rule 65 of the Rules ibid cannot be defeated on misconceived notions. The respondents have acted unreasonably in this case to deny relief to applicant. Accordingly, OA is allowed. Respondents are directed to enforce their own order, granting compassionate allowance and gratuity to applicant. As a consequence thereof, the same may be paid to her from the due date with all arrears along with simple interest of 12% per annum, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. (emphasis supplied)
9. It may be stated that the direction to give the interest was issued by the Tribunal, as initially the compassionate allowance was sanctioned vide the order dated 18.9.2003. However, the said decision passed by the competent authority was not implemented and the claim of the applicant therein was denied in terms of the Railway Boards instructions of 2005 on the ground that the competent authority has exercised such power after ten years. It was under the facts and circumstances of that case that the Tribunal in the said case (Neelam Singh) has directed the respondents to reinforce their own orders granting compassionate allowance and gratuity and it was in consequence of that order the applicant was held entitled for simple interest of 12% per annum on the arrears.
10. As already stated above, in the present case, there is no such order in favour of the applicant granting compassionate allowance along with interest. However, the order regarding compassionate allowance was passed by the authority pursuant to the directions given by this Tribunal on 11.6.2009. Thus, there is no delay on the part of the respondents to pay the arrears to the applicant once the decision was taken on 11.6.2009. Thus, according to me, the applicant is not entitled to any interest, more particularly, when the Tribunal in the earlier OA has not specifically stated that the arrears of compassionate allowance to the widow shall be paid along with interest, as can be seen from the order extracted in para 7 above. Thus, in exercise of judicial power, it is not permissible for me to substitute the categorical finding given by the authorities that the applicant is not entitled to any interest as per rules and also that there is nothing in the judgment of this Tribunal granting interest on compassionate allowance.
11. For the foregoing reasons, I find no ground to interfere in the matter. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed at the admission stage.
( M. L. Chauhan ) Member (J) /sunil/