Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Naresh Kumar vs Comm. Of Police on 14 September, 2018
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.2966/2015
Friday, this the 14th day of September 2018
Hon'ble Mr. K.N. Shrivastava, Member (A)
Shri Naresh Kumar (Constable Driver)
s/o Hari Kishan, age 45 years
r/o I Block, 1403-1404
PO Jahangir Puri, Delhi - 33
..Applicant
(Mr. Sachin Chauhan, Advocate)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through the Chief Secretary
Govt. of NCTD
Nava Sachivalaya IP Estate
New Delhi
2. The Commissioner of Police
Police Headquarters, IP Estate
MSO Building, New Delhi
3. The Deputy Commissioner of Police
R P Bhawan (Sec.) through
The Commissioner of Police
Police Headquarters, IP Estate
MSO Building, New Delhi
..Respondents
(Ms. Neetu Mishra, Advocate for Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Advocate)
O R D E R (ORAL)
The applicant was appointed as a Constable (Driver.) in Delhi Police on 12.01.1988. For his unauthorized absence, he was dismissed in service on 09.07.1998. The applicant challenged his dismissal order before the Tribunal in O.A. No.2395/2011. During the course of adjudication of the ibid O.A., the applicant indicated that he would be contented with the grant 2 of compassionate allowance. Accordingly, the Tribunal disposed of O.A. No.2395/2011 vide order dated 12.05.2014; operative part of which reads as under:-
"Once the applicant has espoused his claim for compassionate allowance, which becomes payable only to a Government servant who is dismissed or removed from service, ex-facie, he has acquiesced the order of penalty. Thus, the OA is disposed of not pressed. It goes without saying that the applicant has liberty to espouse his claim before the appropriate authority for compassionate allowance. We are sanguine that such claim put forth by the applicant would be considered by the competent authority, keeping in view the aforementioned judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Delhi High Court. No costs."
2. Pursuant to order dated 12.05.2014, the respondents, vide their Annexure A-2 order dated 04.09.2014, sanctioned him compassionate allowance @ 1/3rd of pension and gratuity. The contents of the said order are reproduced below:-
"Consequent upon judgment dated 12.05.2014 delivered by the Principal Bench of Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Delhi in O.A. No.2395/2011 - Naresh Kumar v/s Govt. of NCT Delhi & others vide which the Hon'ble CAT Delhi has passed directions that "once the applicant has espoused his claim for compassionate allowance which becomes payable only to a Government servant who is dismissed or removed from service, ex-facie, he has acquiesced the order of penalty. Thus, the OA is disposed of as not pressed. It goes without saying that the applicant has liberty to espouse his claim before the appropriate authority for compassionate allowances. We are sanguine that such claim put forth by the applicant would be considered by the competent authority, keeping in view the aforementioned judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Delhi High Court." In the present case, a punishment of dismissal was awarded to the applicant for his unauthorized absence vide this office order No.8073-8172/HAP/DCP/RB dated 08.07.1998. His appeal was also rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 12.03.1998. I have considered the claim under the guidelines of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.2111 of 2009 (Mahinder Dutt Sharma V/s UOI & Ors.) decided on 11.04.2014 as well as opinion of LA to CP, Delhi received through Spl. CP/Admn. Delhi. The present financial status of the applicant has also been got verified and taken into consideration. The applicant was also heard in O.R. on 3 01.09.2014. Considering the overall facts and situation, the Compassionate Allowance @ 1/3rd of pension & gratuity is hereby sanctioned to Ex. Const. (Driver) Naresh Kumar, No.195/RB, (PIS No.28882684) in the light of provision of Rule 41 of C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972, as under:-
3. Subsequently, the respondents passed the impugned Annexure A-1 order dated 25.02.2015 withdrawing the Annexure A-2 order on the ground that the applicant was not entitled for the compassionate allowance, as he had rendered only 8 years & 8 months service, whereas in terms of Rule 49 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (for short "Pension Rules"), minimum years of qualifying service prescribed is 10 years.
4. Pursuant to the notices issued, the respondents have entered appearance and filed their reply.
5. I have gone through the pleadings and heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Rule 49 of the Pension Rules deals with the computation of amount of pension and not with the compassionate allowance. The compassionate allowance has been dealt under Rule 41 of the Pension Rules, which is extracted below:-
"(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 1[compensation pension].4
(2) A compassionate allowance sanctioned under the proviso to sub-rule (1) shall not be less than the amount of [Rupees three thousand five hundred] per mensem."
7. As could be seen from Rule 41 of the Pension Rules, there is no minimum qualifying years of service prescribed for grant of compassionate allowance. This view is also supported by the following judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court and this Tribunal:
(i) Ramesh Kumar Singh v. Union of India & others (W.P. (C) No.5127/2012) decided by Hon'ble High Court on 23.08.2012; and
(ii) Sumlesh Devi v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & another (O.A. No.3373/2016) decided by this Tribunal on 26.04.2018.
8. From the perusal of the aforesaid judgments, I am of the view that the grant of compassionate allowance is not incumbent on any minimum qualifying years of service and that it is given in consideration of the services rendered by the official concerned. Even the authorities concerned have discretion to decide the quantum payable. I also notice that this case is squarely covered by the judgment of this Tribunal in Sumlesh Devi's case (supra).
9. In view of the above, I allow this O.A. and quash and set aside the impugned Annexure A-1 order dated 25.02.2015. The respondents are directed to pay the compassionate allowance in accordance with their earlier Annexure A-2 order dated 04.09.2014. The applicant shall be entitled for the compassionate allowance from the date of issuance of 5 impugned Annexure A-2 order but shall not be entitled for any interest on the arrears of compassionate allowance.
No order as to costs.
( K.N. Shrivastava ) Member (A) September 14, 2018 /sunil/