Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
M S Maurya vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 28 March, 2022
1
OA No. 864/2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 864/2016
Order reserved on 21.03.2022
DATE OF ORDER: 28.03.2022
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. DINESH SHARMA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
HON'BLE MRS. HINA P. SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
M S Maurya S/o Late Narain Singh, aged 70 years,
'Schedule Caste' R/o C-51, Bajrang Marg, J P Colony;
Tonk Phatak Jaipur-15 (dismissed) Employee of EPF
Organisation.
....Applicant
Shri S.K. Bhargava, counsel for applicant.
VERSUS
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of
Labour & Employment, Shram Shakti Bhawan
Rafi Marg New Delhi.
2. Central Provident Fund Commissioner EPF
Organisation, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 14,
Bhikaji Cama Place New Delhi - 110066.
.... Respondents
Shri Akshay Sharma, proxy counsel for
Shri R.B. Mathur, counsel for respondents.
ORDER
Per: Hina P. Shah, Judicial Member The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the following reliefs:- 2 OA No. 864/2016
"a. To direct the respondent to grant the Applicant the compassionate allowance admissible as per rules.
b. To grant any other relief or further order(s), as the Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case."
2. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the applicant, are that he was dismissed from service vide order dated 25.05.2001, (Annexure A/1), consequent upon his conviction under Rule 7 of P C Act, 1988. Consequent upon his dismissal order, he has no means to survive and has become very difficult to maintain his family. He submitted an application dated 24.02.2016, (Annexure A/2), to the respondents for grant of compassionate allowance. As there was no response to his application, he submitted his representation to the Central P F Commissioner by name through proper channel, which was forwarded by Regional P F Commissioner-I, Jaipur vide letter dated 27.10.2016 (Annexure A/4). Under RTI Act, 2005, he got information that his matter has been taken up with the Addl. CPFC, Vigilance Wing vide Note dated 24.06.2016. Since there was no progress, he gave a legal notice dated 23.11.2016, (Annexure A/6), through his Advocate. It is his case that as per Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, he is 3 OA No. 864/2016 entitled for compassionate allowance. Also due to old age and financial breakdown, it is very difficult for him to survive. Thus, being aggrieved by the action of the respondents, applicant has approached this Tribunal for redressal of his grievance. In support of his contention, the applicant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Mahinder Dutt Sharma vs. Union of India & Ors., (Civil Appeal No. 2111 of 2009), decided on 11.04.2014, reported in AIR 2014, SC 2009.
3. After issue of notices, the respondents have filed their reply stating that the applicant, Ex-Enforcement Officer of Regional Office, Rajasthan, was trapped by CBI and was caught red-handed on 08.02.1995 accepting bribe of Rs. 2,500/- and was placed under suspension w.e.f. 14.02.1995. Subsequently, on receipt of SP, CBI's report, sanction for prosecution was accorded vide order dated 26.05.1995. Charge sheet was filed by CBI against the applicant in the Court of Special Judge, CBI, Jodhpur on 31.05.1995. The applicant was awarded a sentence of six months of simple imprisonment and was imposed a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for his conviction under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 vide order dated 4 OA No. 864/2016 23.12.2000 passed by the Special Judge, CBI, Jodhpur. He was further awarded a sentence of one year of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for his conviction under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of the said Act with the stipulation that both the sentences shall run concurrently and with further stipulation that in case of the applicant's failure to pay the fine of Rs. 1,000/-, he has to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and on failure to pay the fine of Rs. 2,000/-, he has to undergo a simple imprisonment for two months. On the said conviction, applicant was dismissed from service vide order dated 25.05.2001 passed by the Central P F Commissioner in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by Rule 8(3) of the EPF Staff (CC&A) Rules, 1971. More than 16 years have passed after dismissal order as representation was given by the applicant on 24.02.2016 for grant of compassionate allowance. Compassionate Allowance under Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 cannot be claimed as a matter of right as it is the discretion of the competent authority to allow the same. Applicant has filed this O.A. in the month of December, 2016 whereas the dismissal order was passed in the year 2001. There is no justification 5 OA No. 864/2016 given by the applicant for the delay for claiming compassionate allowance, which was not claimed by him since 2001. Also representation seeking compassionate allowance has been submitted by the applicant after 15 years of dismissal order and there is no justification for the same. In the present case, there has been no recommendation by the Head of Office for grant of compassionate allowance nor the order of dismissal issued by the competent authority has recommended any compassionate allowance. Thus, the present O.A. is not maintainable and the same deserves to be dismissed. In support of their contentions, the respondents have relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, passed in the case of Sheela Devi (Smt.) vs. Union of India & Ors., (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2201 of 2005), decided on 05.10.2010.
4. The respondents have filed MA No. 228/2018 for bringing copy of letter dated 18.12.2017 on record as per direction of this Tribunal vide dated 01.09.2017 to dispose of the reference dated 27.10.2016 of the Regional P F Commissioner. In compliance thereof, the respondents, as per letter dated 18.12.2017, the Central Provident Fund Commissioner has considered all the facts connected with the matter as well as rules 6 OA No. 864/2016 and after proper application of mind has observed that the applicant is not entitled to compassionate allowance. The said M.A. has already been allowed by this Tribunal vide order dated 17.07.2018 and the documents annexed with the said M.A. including copy of letter dated 18.12.2017 have been taken on record.
5. Applicant has not filed any rejoinder denying the contentions of the respondents.
6. We have heard learned counsels for the parties at length and considered the pleadings of the parties as well as the judgments relied by the parties
7. The applicants as well as the respondents have reiterated their submissions as stated earlier.
8. The factual matrix of the case is that the applicant, who was Ex-Enforcement Officer of Regional Office, Rajasthan was trapped by CBI and was caught red- handed on 08.02.1995 while demanding and accepting bribe of Rs. 2,500/- and he was placed under suspension w.e.f. 14.02.1995. Subsequently, on receipt of SP, CBI's report, sanction for prosecution was accorded vide order dated 26.05.1995. The 7 OA No. 864/2016 charge sheet was filed by Central Bureau of Investigation against the applicant in the Court of Special Judge, CBI, Jodhpur on 31.05.1995. The Special Judge, CBI, Jodhpur has passed a judgment on 23.12.2000 awarding a sentence of six months of simple imprisonment and imposing a fine of Rs. 1,000/- on the applicant for his conviction under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was further awarded a sentence of one year of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for his conviction under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of the said Act with the stipulation that both the sentences shall run concurrently and with further stipulation that in case of the applicant's failure to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, he has to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and on failure to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, he has to undergo a simple imprisonment for two months. On conviction by the Special Judge, CBI, Jodhpur, applicant was dismissed from service vide order dated 25.05.2001, (Annexure A/1), by the Central P F Commissioner in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by Rule 8(3) of the EPF Staff (CC&A) Rules, 1971.
9. We have noticed that the applicant was dismissed from service vide order dated 25.05.2001, (Annexure 8 OA No. 864/2016 A/1) with immediate effect and he made a representation dated 24.02.2016 for grant of compassionate allowance. It is almost after 15 years, applicant has approached the respondents for grant of compassionate allowance. There is no justification from the applicant for the delay in claiming compassionate allowance, which he did not claim since 2001 when he was dismissed from service. Even the representation does not give valid reasons for the said delay.
10. As per Rule 41 of Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972, compassionate allowance is not a vested right and the same can be allowed only at the discretion of the competent authority. The Rule 41 of the said Rules reads as under:-
"41. Compassionate Allowance (1) 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-thirds of pension or gratuity or both which would have been admissible to him if he had retired on compensation pension.
(2) A Compassionate Allowance sanctioned under the proviso to sub-rule (1) shall not 9 OA No. 864/2016 be less than the amount of (Rupees three thousand five hundred) per mensem."
From bare perusal of the said Rules, it is clear that Compassionate Allowance cannot be claimed as a matter of right as it is the discretion of the competent authority to allow the same or not. A Government servant who is dismissed or removed from service shall forfeit his pension and gratuity, but 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-thirds of pension or gratuity or both which would have been admissible to him if he had retired on compensation pension. It is also clear from the order dated 25.05.2001, (Annexure A/1), whereby a penalty of dismissal from service with immediate effect was imposed upon the applicant, that the competent authority has not recommended his case deserving of special consideration for sanction of Compassionate Allowance.
11. We have also gone through the letter dated 18.12.2017, which has been passed by the respondents on the directions of this Tribunal dated 01.09.2017 as to what action has been taken by the 10 OA No. 864/2016 Central Provident Fund Commissioner in response to the reference dated 27.10.2016 of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and, as such, the respondents were directed to dispose of the said reference dated 27.10.2016. After going through the said letter dated 18.12.2017, it is clear that the competent authority i.e. Central Provident Fund Commissioner, at para nos. 7 and 8, has made observations while rejecting the claim of the applicant for compassionate allowance. The para nos. 7 and 8 of the said letter dated 18.12.2017, read as under: -
"7. In the instant case the main reason for dismissal of the applicant was dishonesty, untrustworthy deceitful and insincere, misusing of responsibility bestowed on him resulting in prejudice to the interest of the Organisation. This reason weighed upon the judgment of the Disciplinary Authority in arriving at the quantum of penalty. Hence there need not be any further grounds to be considered. The provisions of Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 ipso facto does not give any liberty to change these considerations.
8. Furthermore, the application in question submitted by the dismissed officer is hit by delay and latches as he applied for compassionate allowance nearly 15 years after the dismissal of the applicant. The request is definitely an afterthought, nothing more can be said on this point. If such contention is allowed, employees will not bother to maintain discipline or follow rules because they would think ultimately, even if, they are dismissed, they can always claim compassionate allowance. Compassionate Allowance cannot be sought as a matter of right unless there are some 11 OA No. 864/2016 exceptional circumstances which will overbear upon the Disciplinary Authority to consider sanction of compassionate allowance."
12. We feel that the competent authority has considered the claim of the applicant in all aspects and then after proper application of mind has come to the conclusion that the applicant is not entitled for compassionate allowance. Even the grounds raised by the applicant are not convincing and are not sustainable.
13. As far as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Mahinder Dutt Sharma (supra), relied upon by the applicant, is concerned, the facts of that case are not applicable to the present case. In the case of Mahinder Dutt Sharma (supra), disciplinary action was initiated against him on account of his continuous absence from duty w.e.f. 18.01.1995, and finally he was dismissed from service vide order dated 17.05.1996 after holding disciplinary enquiry. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after taking into account the facts and circumstances of the said case, set aside the order dated 25.04.2005 passed by the authority rejecting the prayer made by the appellant for grant of compassionate allowance. The order 12 OA No. 864/2016 passed by the Tribunal 28.02.2006 as well as order passed by the Hon'ble High Court dated 13.11.2006 were also set aside and the Competent Authority was directed to re-consider the claim of the appellant for the grant of compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the Pension Rules, 1972. However, the case of the present applicant is totally different to the case of Mahinder Dutt Sharma. The present applicant was trapped by CBI and was caught red-handed on accepting bribe of Rs. 2,500/- and he was placed under suspension w.e.f. 14.02.1995. The charge sheet was filed by CBI against the applicant in the Court of Special Judge, CBI, Jodhpur on 31.05.1995. The Special Judge, CBI, Jodhpur has passed a judgment on 23.12.2000 awarding a sentence of six months of simple imprisonment and imposing a fine of Rs. 1,000/- on the applicant for his conviction under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988. He was further awarded a sentence of one year of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for his conviction under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of the said Act with the stipulation that both the sentences shall run concurrently and with further stipulation that in case of the applicant's failure to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, he has to undergo simple imprisonment for one month 13 OA No. 864/2016 and on failure to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, he has to undergo a simple imprisonment for two months. On conviction by the Special Judge, CBI, Jodhpur, applicant was dismissed from service vide order dated 25.05.2001 by the Central P F Commissioner in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by Rule 8(3) of the EPF Staff (CC&A) Rules, 1971.
Further, it is seen that in pursuance to the Tribunal's interim order dated 01.09.2017, the Competent Authority has considered the claim of the applicant for grant of compassionate allowance and the Competent Authority vide order dated 18.12.2017, after considering all facts, rules and after proper application of mind, observed that the applicant is not entitled to compassionate allowance.
14. We agree with the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, passed in the case of Sheela Devi (Smt.) (supra), relied upon by the respondents, as the facts of that case are almost similar to the present case. The relevant para 10 of the judgment passed in the case of Sheela Devi (Smt.) (supra), reads as under: -
"10. A perusal of the above rule indicates that in a deserving case, compassionate allowance not exceeding two-third of pension or 14 OA No. 864/2016 gratuity or both would have been admissible to a dismissed government servant, if he had retired on compassionate pension. It appears that such an order is required primarily to be passed at the time of dismissal or removal of the government servant in case it is found that the case deserves special consideration, sanction a compassionate allowance not exceeding two-third of pension or gratuity or both which would have been admissible to him if he had retired on compassionate pension. We do not find any special circumstance in which compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the Pension Rules could be granted to the Petitioner as has been discussed herein- above. In the present case, the husband of the Petitioner embezzled a huge amount which was public money and the guilt was also admitted. After a detailed inquiry under the CCA Rules, the disciplinary authority came to the conclusion that the removal from service of the husband of the Petitioner was must in the case, therefore, removed the delinquent official. In the present case, on account of charge which was faced by the husband of the Petitioner in the departmental inquiry, it appears that it was severe charge and the husband of the Petitioner was a dishonest government official, therefore, in such cases, in our opinion, there does not appear any adequate justification to grant this benefit. In the above stated facts and circumstances of the case, as we have noticed above, there is hardly any justification to allow compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the Pension Rules as the delinquent official has repeatedly made embezzlement of the public money."
In the instant case, the main reason for dismissal of the applicant was dishonesty, untrustworthy deceitful and insincere, misusing of responsibility bestowed on him resulting in prejudice to the interest 15 OA No. 864/2016 of the Organisation. On conviction by the Special Judge, CBI, Jodhpur, applicant was dismissed from service. If the request of the applicant for grant of compassionate allowance is accepted, employees will not bother to maintain discipline or follow rules because they would think ultimately, even if, they are dismissed, they can always claim compassionate allowance. Compassionate Allowance cannot be sought as a matter of right unless there are some exceptional circumstances. In the present case, there is hardly any justification to allow compassionate allowance to the applicant under Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
15. In view of the observations made herein-above, we are of the considered view that there deserves no interference by this Tribunal in the action of the respondents. Accordingly, Original Application being devoid of any merits, deserves to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
(HINA P. SHAH) (DINESH SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER /nlk/