Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Devi Singh Rana vs Railway on 30 January, 2025
1
O.A. No. 515/2023
Item No. 48 (C-5)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 515/2023
Reserved on: 13.01.2025
Pronounced on
on: 30.01.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Devi Singh Rana,
S/o Late Khacheru Singh,
Aged about 70 years,
R/o 202, Mata Colony,
Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad,
Uttar Pradesh - 201009.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. R. K. Shukla with the applicant in
person)
VERSUS
1. Union of India through,
The General Manager,
Northern Railway Hq's,
Bardoa House, New Delhi - 110001.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager,
Northern Railway, Delhi Division,
DRM Office, New Delhi - 110055.
3. The Divisional Mechanical Engineer,
Carriage and Wagon,
Delhi Division, Northern Railway,
DRM Office, New Delhi - 110055.
4. The Assistant Personnel Officer,
Delhi Division, Northern Railway,
DRM Office, New Delhi - 110055.
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. N. D. Kaushik)
2
O.A. No. 515/2023
Item No. 48 (C-5)
ORDER
By way of the present O.A. filed under Section - 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
"(a) To quash and set aside the impugned order dated 28.12.2022 directing the respondents to consider and grant compassionate allowance in terms of Rule 65 of the railway pension rules 1993 and jud judgment of Mahender Dutt Sharma case.
(b) To allow the O.A. with all consequential benefits.
(c) To pass any other and such further order (s) which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper."
2. Narrating the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted as under:
2.1. The applicant's case revolves around the unjust denial of compassionate allowance by the respondents. The applicant, a former Group D employee of Northern Railway, was removed from service in the year 2000 due to unauthorized orized absence. Thereafter, the applicant filed O.A. No. 1133/2014 and the same was disposed of on 23.07.2016 directing the respondents to decide the pending representation of the applicant in light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahinder Dutt Sharma Vs. UOI & Ors.
Ors 3 O.A. No. 515/2023 Item No. 48 (C-5) 2.2. Learned counsel submitted that the respondents in blatant disregard to the order dated 23.07.2016 passed by this Tribunal, rejected the applicant's claim vide order dated 22.02.2017, citing four frivolous grounds. 2.3. Firstly, the respondents claimed that the applicant's unauthorized absence barred compassionate allowance. However, this argument holds no water, as the Apex Court's judgment in Mahinder Dutt Sharma vs. UOI & Ors. (2014) 11 SCC 684 clearly establishes that unauthorized absence does not disentitle an employee from receiving compassionate allowance. 2.4. Secondly, the respondents alleged the applicant held a post of profit as a Municipal councilor. Yet, the Ghaziabad Municipal Corporation's clarificatio clarification unequivocally states that this post does not fall within the ambit of a post of profit.
2.5. Thirdly, the respondents accused the applicant of non-cooperation cooperation in the inquiry. This ground is equally untenable, as the applicant's reinstatement was already ordered by this Tribunal.
4O.A. No. 515/2023 Item No. 48 (C-5) 2.6. Lastly, the respondents claimed that the applicant failed to submit an appeal within 45 days. This technicality cannot justify the denial of compassionate allowance, especially when the applicant has already been granted relief elief by this Tribunal.
2.7. In light of aforesaid arguments, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that it is clear that the respondents' decision is arbitrary, unjust, and in blatant disregard of the law. Accordingly, learned counsel prayed for a direction to the respondents to grant the applicant compassionate allowance.
3. Supporting his arguments, learned counsel for the applicant urged the following grounds:
3.1. The impugned order is invalid as it contradicts Rule 65 of the Railway Pension Rules, 1993, which allows dismissed/removed employees to claim compassionate allowance.
3.2. The respondents' insistence on filing an appeal within 45 days is irrelevant, as this pertains to reinstatement, not compassionate allowance.5
O.A. No. 515/2023
Item No. 48 (C-5) 3.3. Rule 65 and CCS CCS Pension Rules, 1972, provide an alternative remedy for seeking compassionate allowance, regardless of whether an appeal is filed or not. 3.4. The applicant has accepted the penalty of removal from service but is still entitled to claim compassionate allowance.
3.5. The clarification from the Municipal Corporation confirms that the applicant's post as Sabha Sadh does not fall within the ambit of a post of profit.
4. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit and submitted as under:
4.1. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the present O.A. is liable to be dismissed as a closer examination of the facts reveals a disturbing pattern of concealment, non-cooperation, non ation, and blatant disregard for disciplinary proceedings.
4.2. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the applicant, while serving as a Group D employee in Northern Railway, clandestinely assumed the role of councilor in Ghaziabad Municipal Corporation. This breach of trust 6 O.A. No. 515/2023 Item No. 48 (C-5) prompted the respondents to issue a Major Punishment Charge Sheet (SF-5) (SF 5) on 16.09.1998. The charge sheet was duly served at the applicant's residential address. However, despite being afforded multiple multiple opportunities, the applicant callously disregarded the disciplinary proceedings and failed to submit any representation against the charges, nor did he attend the enquiry as scheduled on 06.05.2000 and 26.06.2000. The applicant's excuse of health probl problems on 06.05.2000, only serves to underscore his blatant disregard for the disciplinary process. 4.3. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in light of the applicant's non-cooperation non cooperation and concealment of material facts, the Disciplinary Author Authority was left with no choice but to impose the major penalty of removal from service. This decision was fully justified, given the applicant's reprehensible conduct. 4.4. Furthermore, when the applicant subsequently filed a representation for compassionate allowance on 22.03.2022, the competent authority carefully c considered the request and rejected it vide letter dated 28.12.2022. This decision was amply justified, given the applicant's antecedents and the circumstances surrounding his removal from service service.7
O.A. No. 515/2023
Item No. 48 (C-5) 4.5. In view of the foregoing, learned counsel for the respondents prayed for dismissal of the present O.A. filed by the applicant and submitted that the respondents' decision to deny compassionate allowance is fully justified, and the applicant's conduct conduct offers no basis for sympathy or relief.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records available on record.
6. ANALYSIS :
6.1 As far as the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahinder Dutt Sharma (supra) is concerned, it would be pertinent to bear in mind the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in p para 14 of its judgment while considering case of grant of Compassionate Allowance, which is quoted hereunder:
"14.
14. While evaluating the claim of a dismissed (or removed from service) employee, for the grant of compassionate allowance, the rule postulates a window for hope, "...if the case is deserving of special consideration...". Where the delinquency leading to punishment, hment, falls in one of the five classifications delineated in the foregoing paragraph, it would ordinarily disentitle an employee from such compassionate consideration. An employee who falls in any of the above five categories, would therefore ordinarily n not be a deserving employee, for the grant of compassionate allowance. In a situation like this, the deserving special consideration, will have to be momentous. It is not possible to effectively define the term "deserving special consideration" used in Rule 41 of the Pension Rules, 8 O.A. No. 515/2023 Item No. 48 (C-5) 1972. We shall therefore not endeavour any attempt in the said direction. Circumstances deserving special consideration, would ordinarily be unlimited, keeping in mind unlimited variability of human environment. But surely where the he delinquency leveled and proved against the punished employee, does not fall in the realm of misdemeanour illustratively categorized in the foregoing paragraph, it would be easier than otherwise, to extend such benefit to the punished employee, of course course, subject to availability of factors of compassionate consideration."
6.2 In S.C. Sharma V.. Union Of India And Others Others, CWP No.6582 of 2019 decided on March 19, 2019 2019, the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh observed as under :--
"(10) (10) In this case, on account of dismissal from service, his past service is forfeited and he was not granted pensionary benefits. The authorities have taken the view that poverty is not essential condition precedent to the grant of compassionate allowance allowance. The authorities have considered his mis-conduct.
conduct. Applicant Applicant-petitioner was a Principal in the school. The authorities are also of the view that mis-conduct conduct of applicant applicant-petitioner is of grave nature reflecting disloyalty to his duty and organization and, therefore, unpardonable. It also held that it tantamount to dishonesty towards his duties. (11) We are of the view that Tribunal or this Court cannot sit on the judgment of authorities. Compassionate allowance under Rule 41 (supra) cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is for authorities to consider. The authorities have considered the same and decided not to grant compassionate allowance to him. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in impugned order dated 9.10.2018 (Annexure (Annexure-P-4), passed by Tribunal, declining to interfere in the same. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the present petition and same is accordingly dismissed. "
6.3 The applicant, a former Group D employee of Northern Railway, was removed from service in the year 2000 due to unauthorized absence. Thereafter, the 9 O.A. No. 515/2023 Item No. 48 (C-5) applicant filed O.A. No. 1133/2014 and the same was disposed of on 23.07.2016 directing the respondents to decide the pending representation of the applicant in light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahinder Dutt Sharma Vs. UOI & Ors. The applicant had chosen path of social cause by clandestinely assuming the role of councilor in Ghaziabad Municipal Corporation. 6.4. In Mahinder Dutt Sharma (supra), supra), it was held that "It It is not possible to effectively define the term "deserving special consideration" used in Rule 41 of the Pension Rules, 1972. We shall therefore not endeavour any attempt in the said direction. Circumstances deserving special consideration, would ordinarily ordinarily be unlimited, keeping in mind unlimited variability of human environment". Major Punishment Charge Sheet (SF-5) (SF 5) was issued to the applicant on 16.09.1998. The penalty was imposed long ago and raising the ground of financial financial conditions, af after a long period iod of imposition of penalty at this belated stage appears to be an afterthought. Further, poverty is not an essential condition precedent to the grant of compassionate allowance. The right to receive compassionate allowance depends on various invariable factors which cannot be put in a water tight compartment. The Tribunal cannot sit in 10 O.A. No. 515/2023 Item No. 48 (C-5) appeal again and again to arrive at a conclusion in favour of the applicant.
7. CONCLUSION :
7.1. In view of the above factual factual matrix of the case as well as settled proposition of law, there is no infirmity in the decision taken by the respondent in rejecting the case of applicant for grant of compassionate allowance.
7.2. The OA is dismissed. Pending
P MAs
MAs, if any, shall stand
disposed of. No costs.
(Manish Garg)
Member (J)
/as/