Gauhati High Court
Karuna Chandra Roy vs The Union Of India And 6 Ors on 23 November, 2020
Author: Manojit Bhuyan
Bench: Manojit Bhuyan
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010255012014
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1001/2014
KARUNA CHANDRA ROY
S/O LT. KUNJALAL ROY R/O VILL- GAJALGHAT P.O. DEVIPUR P.S. DHOLAI
DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA and 6 ORS
REP.B Y THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF
DEFENCE
2:THE MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
GOVT OF INDIA
'D' PENSION GRIEVANCE 227 B WING
SENA BHAWAN
NEW DELHI-110011.
3:THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
DEPTT. OF PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSION ETC. LOK NAYAK
BHAWAN
KHAN MARKET
NEW DELHI- 110003.
4:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL BORDER ROADS
SENA SADAK BHAWAN RING ROAD
DELHI CANTT. NEW DELHI- 110010.
5:THE ADJUTANT GENERAL
ADJUTANT GENERAL BRANCH R and W SECTIION ARMY H.Q. DHD P.O.
NEW DELHI- 110011.
Page No.# 2/3
6:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
PROJECT BEACON PIN- 931706
C/O 56 A.P.O.
7:GREE RECORDS
DIGHI CAMP PUNE-400015
MAHARASTRA STATE
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S ALAM
Advocate for the Respondent : MR.S C KEYAL
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT BHUYAN
ORDER
23.11.2020 Heard Mr. A.R. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned ASGI for the respondents.
Although prayer in the writ petition is for setting aside the order dated 05.03.2009, whereby the petitioner was removed from service, Mr. Sikdar prays for moulding the relief to the extent that at least a direction be made to the respondents for granting him the benefit of Rule 41 of the CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972, which pertains to grant of compassionate allowance pension. In this regard, Mr. Sikdar submits that the removal of the petitioner was not on account of any allegations on moral turpitude etc. but because he was absent from duty, which was due to his ill health.
On the above, Mr. Choudhury submits that with regard to granting any benefit under Rule 41 of the aforesaid Rules, an exercise was taken and the same was rejected and averment in that regard is also made at paragraph 9 of the affidavit-in-opposition.
Be that as it may, Mr. Choudhury will obtain fresh instructions in the matter as regards the scope for re-doing the exercise as to grant of the benefit of Rule 41 in favour of the petitioner.
Page No.# 3/3 Let this matter be posted for Admission on 05.01.2021.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant