Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Manju Devi vs Govt. Of Nctd on 21 March, 2024
1
Item No.51 (C-6) O.A. No.3623/2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No.3623/2019
This the 21st day of March, 2024
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
Manju Devi, Aged 49, (G-C)
W/o Late Sh. Jitender Singh (Ex. Const.)
VPO-Chhawla, South West District,
New Delhi-110071.
... Applicants
(By Advocate:- Mr. Yashpal Rangi with Mr. Md. Sasid)
Versus
Delhi Police & Ors. through
1. Commissioner of Police, Delhi
Police Head Quarters,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi.
2. Addl. Commissioner of Police,
South West District, New Delhi.
3. Deputy Comissioner of Police,
South West District,
Sector-19, Dwarka, New Delhi.
... Respondent
(By Advocate:- Mr. Amit Anand )
2
Item No.51 (C-6) O.A. No.3623/2019
O R D E R (ORAL)
The applicant in the instant OA has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"i. quash and set aside the impugned order dated 27/11/2019 passed by respondent no.3 being arbitrary and against law, and ii. direct the respondents to grant the Applicant compassionate allowance from retrospective date with interest; and iii. pass any other orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. This matter was earlier heard on 22.02.2024 and it is observed as under:-
"The applicant is widow of the deceased employee who while working with the Delhi Police as Constable, died on 20.05.2016. After the death of her husband, the applicant approached the concerned authority with a representation seeking compassionate allowance as provided in Rule 41 of CCS (Pension) Rules on23.09.2016, which was rejected vide a non-speaking Order dated10.11.2016 subsequent to which, she approached this Tribunal with OA No.1021/2017 and the respondents were directed by this Tribunal to pass a speaking order on the detailed representation of the applicant. However, the said detailed representation dated22.11.2018 was rejected by the respondents vide Order dated10.01.2019 on the ground that the deceased employee absented from duty for a prolonged period willfully. Being aggrieved, she filed another OA bearing OA No.767/2019 and vide Order dated02.09.2019, the said rejection order dated 10.01.2019 was set aside by this Tribunal and the respondents were directed to reconsider the case of the applicant for grant of compassionate allowance and pass a reasoned and speaking order. Consequently, the impugned Order dated 27.11.2019 has been passed by the respondents, rejecting the claim of the applicant once again on the similar grounds. Thus, finding no difference in both the rejection orders passed by the respondents, particularly no mention of the financial circumstances of the family of the deceased employee therein, the applicant has filed the present OA against the said Rejection Order dated27.11.2019 passed by the respondent no.3, seeking direction to the 3 Item No.51 (C-6) O.A. No.3623/2019 respondents to grant her compassionate allowance from retrospective date along with interest for the delayed period.2. Learned counsel for the applicant relies upon the following identical cases decided by the Hon'ble High Court and the Coordinate Benches of this Tribunal, wherein appropriate reliefs are granted to the applicants therein:-
i. ASI Shadi Ram v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, W.P.(C)No.5544/2007 decided on 22.02.2008.
ii. Anna Deoram Lnhe (deceased by LRs) v. State of Maharashtra, 2004 (3) SLR 485.
iii. Mithlesh Sharan Sharma v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2008 V AD (Delhi) 3.
iv. Kamlesh Devi v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., decided on 09.04.2008 in OA No.1833/2008.
v. Neelam Singh vs. Union of India, decided on 04.05.2007 in OA No.1782/2005.
vi. Sukha v. Union of India, decided on 02.08.2006 in OA No.482/2006.3."
3. In addition to the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the applicant draws attention to the Judgment dated 26.08.2010 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No.2556/2010 titled Ex.L/NK Mahabir Prasad vs. UOI and Ors. and submits that the issue involved herein being identical to the said case, the applicant may be granted similar relief, referring to the facts of the Ex.L/NK Mahabir Prasad's Case, which are incorporated as thus:-
"4. The petitioner was recruited into the Central Reserve Police Force on 19th January, 1971 in the post of Constable. The petitioner is stated to have absented without leave on 4 th August, 1994 which he resumed on 23rd September, 1994 and again deserted the camp laws of the CRPF on 26th September, 1994 4 Item No.51 (C-6) O.A. No.3623/2019 without permission. The respondents framed articles of charges against the petitioner and conducted a disciplinary inquiry against him. These proceedings culminated in imposing of the punishment of dismissal from service with effect from 28th October, 1995 upon the petitioner.
5. It is noteworthy that this order of dismissal was passed after the petitioner had rendered 23 years of service.
6. The petitioner appears to have waited 15 years to pass before he made a representation to the Directorate General of the CRPF on 27th November, 2009 requesting for grant of compassionate allowance from the date of his dismissal from service. The reason for the request and the explanation for the delay in making the representation are both explained on grounds of poor economic conditions. This representation was considered and rejected by the Director General vide the order dated 11th March, 2010 on the ground that the petitioner had been dismissed after holding a disciplinary enquiry against him in accordance with the applicable rules and that the conduct of the petitioner disclosed that he was a "delinquent of disobedient nature and habitual of being absent". The Director General had construed rule 41 of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules and arrived at a conclusion that compassionate allowance was admissible only in those cases where the delinquent had been honest and dedicated during the whole service period which was not so, so far as the petitioner was concerned."
4. The learned counsel draws similarity in the facts of the present case with the those of in Ex.L/NK Mahabir Prasad's Case, stating that the deceased husband of the applicant who joined as Constable in Delhi Police, absented himself from duty due to which, he was dismissed due to unauthorized absence from duty. However, during his service of 25 and a half years, he never received any charge/memo/warning except the one that led to his dismissal, whereas, he could not join his duties during the 5 Item No.51 (C-6) O.A. No.3623/2019 said period only due to some medical/domestic problems. On 20.05.2016, the husband of the applicant expired and the applicant (wife of the deceased employee) made representation to the concerned authority seeking benefits provided in CCS (Pension) Rules on 23.09.2016, which was rejected by the respondents with a non-speaking order. Against the said rejection order, the applicant preferred OA No.1021/2017 which was decided by this Tribunal on 26.09.2018 directing the respondents to pass a speaking order on the detailed representation of the applicant, which she made on 22.11.2018 and the same got again rejected by the respondents vide impugned order dated 10.01.2019. Being aggrieved, she again approached this Tribunal with OA No.767/2019 seeking compassionate allowance. On 02.09.2019, this Tribunal allowed the said OA setting aside the order dated 10.01.2019 and directed the respondents to re-consider the case of the applicant for grant of compassionate allowances by passing a reasoned and speaking order. However, the respondents once again rejected the case of the applicant on 27.11.2019. Hence, the present OA is filed seeking the aforementioned reliefs.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents states that the present OA is liable to be dismissed, reiterating the 6 Item No.51 (C-6) O.A. No.3623/2019 submissions made in the counter affidavit filed on 13.03.2020.
6. Heard Mr. Yashpal Rangi, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Amit Anand, learned counsel for the respondents.
7. Considering the averments made hereinabove and the pleadings available on record, I find merit in the present case as in the earlier round of litigation as well, this Tribunal has not outrightly rejected the plea made by the applicant. Hence, in view of the principle laid down in the aforementioned judicial pronouncements, it is observed that the respondents should have considered the claim of the applicant as she is entitled to be granted the compassionate allowances in terms of the applicable rules and guidelines. Hence, the respondents are hereby directed as follows:-
i. The respondents shall make the appropriate order in accordance with Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules of the amount and period for which the compassionate allowance is admissible to the applicant within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. The order which is passed shall be communicated to the applicant immediately on the same being made.7
Item No.51 (C-6) O.A. No.3623/2019 ii. The respondents shall effect payment of all arrears of the compassionate allowance to the applicant and the amount which may be due to her within a period of four weeks thereafter.
8. The OA is allowed in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
(Dr. Anand S. Khati) Member (A) /yaksh/