Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Ram Chander vs Commissioner Of Police on 3 March, 2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH O.A. No.1312/2014 Reserved On:23/02/2015 Pronounced On:03.03.2015 Honble Mr. G.George Paracken, Member (J) Shri Ram Chander, Age 69 years, Ran-SI S/o Shri Udhiamia Ram R/o 109-B, Nirankari Colony, Patan Marg, Delhi. Applicant By Advocate: Ms. Manashi Pathak. Versus 1. Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarter, MSO Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. Sr. Additional Commissioner of Police, Planning and Implementation, PHQ, MSO Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 3. Dy. Commissioner of Police, IGI Airport, New Delhi. Respondents By Advocate: Ms. Ritika Chawla. ORDER
The Applicant is aggrieved by the impugned Annexure-A Order No.3473-89/HAE-IGIA dated 17.04.2013 rejecting his request for compassionate allowance.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the Applicant joined the Delhi Police as a Constable in the year 1965 and he rose to the rank of Sub Inspector. On 02.09.1995, he was served with a charge sheet and the allegation against him was that while he was detailed for duty at Airport Gate-III Departure, Terminal-II, IGI Airport in the intervening night of 11th and 12th August, 1994 he had extorted Rs.200/- from Shri Hakim Singh and Shri Jagdish Singh and permitted them unauthorized entry without any valid tickets held by them. The Inquiry Officer, vide its report dated 31.05.1995, held that the charges leveled against him were proved. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority, vide its order dated 29.06.1995, dismissed him from service. His appeal against the aforesaid order was also rejected vide order dated 10.07.1995. During the pendency of the appeal, he had also made an application to the Additional Commissioner of Police (Ops.) on 25.09.1995 stating therein that the punishment of dismissal was too harsh and he was denied all the retirement benefits. He has also pointed out that his family was in great misery and his children was studying in school and colleges and his old aged parents were dependent upon him. The said representation was also rejected vide order dated 25.06.1996. The Applicant thereafter approached this Tribunal vide OA No.2396/1997 and it was dismissed vide order dated 30.11.2000. The Writ Petition No.( C) 3205/2001 filed against the aforesaid order was also dismissed on 24.01.2013. However, the High Court directed the competent authority to take into account the fact that he had rendered 29= years of service when he got dismissed from service and he should be considered for sanctioning the compassionate allowance. The operative part of the said judgment reads as under:-
13. Within the jurisprudence applicable to domestic inquiries we find sufficient and credible evidence against the petitioner and would uphold the penalty imposed, but would simultaneously observe that the petitioner had rendered 29= years" service. Penalty of compulsory retirement not being a penalty which can be levied under the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1980, the Competent Authority ought to have considered sanctioning a Compassionate Allowance under Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972. The reason is that law requires compassion to be blended with punishment.
14. Dismissing the writ petition with respect to the relief prayed for, we direct the Competent Authority of the petitioner to take into account the fact that petitioner had rendered 29= years" service when he was dismissed from service and in light of said fact consider sanctioning a Compassionate Allowance to the petitioner and for which we permit the petitioner to file a detailed representation which would be considered by the Competent Authority and necessary orders would be passed thereon within six weeks of receipt of the application.
15. No costs.
3. In terms of the aforesaid directions of the High Court, the Applicant submitted his representation dated 02.03.2013 for grant of compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 which 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 be less than the amount of Rupees three hundred and seventy-five per mensem.
However, the Respondents, vide impugned order dated 17.04.2013, rejected his request observing that he was dismissed from service on the allegation of serious misconduct of indulging in dishonest and corrupt activities endangering the aviation security. Therefore, his request is not covered under Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
4. The Applicant challenged the aforesaid order in this OA stating that in similar circumstances, the competent authority, vide order dated 11.05.2012, had granted compassionate allowances after the directions of the Honble High Court in CWP No.6171/2011 Jaipal Singh Rana Vs. Commissioner of Police and Others. The operative part of the said order reads as under:-
Mr.Shankar Raju, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly stated that the tribunal while disposing the original application had observed that keeping in view the service rendered by the petitioner for a considerable length of time and at that one which was unblemished, the respondent should consider the grant of compassionate allowance under the relevant rule.
Mr.Rajiv Nanda, learned counsel for the Government of NCT of Delhi submitted that the observations shall be taken in a holistic spirit and appropriate order shall be passed. Be it noted, we have said so as Mr.Raju though initially tried to impress us with regard to the merits of the case but after some debate thought it appropriate to restrict the prayer to the extent that has been observed by the tribunal. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
The Applicant has also produced a order of the Respondents dated 11.05.2012 sanctioning the compassionate allowance to Ex-SI Jaipal Singh Rana which is reproduced as under:-
ORDER In pursuance of judgment dated 17.04.2012 delivered by Honble High Court of Delhi in C.C. ( C) No.958/2011 Jaipal Singh Rana Vs. Rajiv Ranjan, DCP and also in compliance of earlier judgment dated 25.08.2011, delivered by the Division Bench of Honble High Court of Delhi in CWP No.6171/2011 Jaipal Singh Rana Vs. C.P. and Others, this office order No.19457-61/Estt.(DA-II)/Sec., dated 30.09.2011 is hereby withdrawn on administrative grounds and Ex.SI Jaipal Singh Rana, No.D-2481 (dismissed from service vide Order No.5462-5570/HAP/Sec.(P.I) dated 20.08.2007 and later on removed form service vide Order No.61-63/A. Cell/Jt. CP/ Sec., dated 06.07.2010) is hereby sanctioned compassionate allowance @2/3rd of pension and gratuity in the light of provisions of Rule 41 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as under:-
Compassionate Gratuity
Allowance
Rs.5,247/- P.M. +
R.I.P. w.e.f. 21.08.2007
onwards Rs.1,88,727/-
SIP/OB
(Rajiv Ranjan)
Dy. Commissioner of Police,
Security (HQ), New
Delhi.
No.11252-56/Estt.(DA-II)/ Sec., Dated, Delhi the 11.05.2012.
5. Further, the learned counsel for the Applicant has relied upon another judgment of the Honble High Court of Delhi in W.P. ( C) No.5544/2007 Shadi Ram Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi decided on 22.02.2008. The relevant part of the said judgment reads as under:-
33. I also agree with the submission of the petitioners counsel that the punishment of dismissal from service is employed only in the most grievous cases of misconduct by an officer, and the provision contemplating the grant of Compassionate Allowance can be invoked only by someone who have been dismissed from service. It is obvious that conduct that leads to an officers dismissal is bound to be of a kind that tends to tarnish the image of his employer. After all, that is also one of the reasons for his dismissal. For the Competent Authority to thereafter say that he doesnt deserve Compassionate Allowance because he lowered his employers image by the very act, or acts, that led to his dismissal, is to render the provision otiose. Furthermore, in the light of foregoing analysis of Rule 41 as well as the Guidelines, the issue before the Competent Authority is only whether the punishment imposed has been unduly hard on the officer. That is the point of view from which the whole thing is to be examined. That the dismissed officer's conduct has tarnished the image of the Force is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Such an approach on the part of the Competent Authority shows a lack of understanding of the object and purpose of the rule and the circumstances under which it is invoked.
34. I might add that, in my view, there is an element of decision-making involved in disposing of an application for grant of Compassionate Allowance. As the title suggests, it is an application seeking a, compassionate allowance. It is a plea whereby the authorities might be moved to show compassion for a former employee in straitened circumstances. I need hardly add that justice tempered with mercy always has a lasting effect. Furthermore, even in decisions taken by an Administrative Authority, there must be an element of uniformity and rationality. The power to grant or refuse Compassionate Allowance cannot be exercised on the mere whim of the officer who is designated as the Competent Authority at the relevant time.
35. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned Judgment of the Tribunal dated 24/5/2007 passed in OA number 1005/06 is set aside. The decision of the Competent Authority dated 24th of February 2006, is quashed. The Competent Authority is directed to reconsider the petitioners application dated 16/2/2005 seeking the grant of Compassionate Allowance in the light of the provisions of Rule 41 CCS (Pension) Rules, the Guidelines dated 22/4/1940, the observations and the conclusions reached by this Court, and to pass a speaking order thereon within one month from today. It should take an independent decision in the matter, without being influenced by any observations of the Tribunal on the merits of the aforesaid application of the petitioner.
36. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
6. Further, he has relied upon the judgment of the Honble High Court of Delhi in W.P. ) No.8421/2010 Manoj Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Police and Others decided on 16.01.2013. The operative part of the said order reads as under:-
9. Not by any standards to be understood to mean that alcoholism is accepted by us as a defence for the stressful work which Constables of Delhi Police perform, but keeping in view that pension is treated as something earned and not a bounty, and Rule 41 of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972 permits if a case is found to be deserving of special consideration a sanction of a compassionate allowance notwithstanding the government servant being dismissed or removed from service, while declining relief as prayed for, we dispose of the writ petition directing the Competent Authority of the respondent to sanction to the petitioner a compassionate allowance with effect from the date he was removed from service i.e. May 12, 2006.
10. We clarify for the benefit of the Competent Authority that compassionate allowance directed to be sanctioned by us is 2/3rd of the compensation pension which would be payable as per Rule 39 of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972 and that Rule 39 does not envisage any minimum qualifying compensation pension service.
11. Compliance be made with this order by calculating the past dues payable as compassionate allowance and paid to the petitioner within 12 weeks from today. Thereafter, monthly compassionate allowance will be paid.
12. No costs.
13. Dasti.
7. Again, he has relied upon the judgment of the High Court in W.P. ( C) No. 2766/1999 Subhakant Agnihotri (Since deceased through Legal Representatives) Vs. Union of India and Others decided on 30.08.2012. The operative part of the said judgment reads as under:-
9. Now, we cannot think of a person being dismissed from service except on a grave misconduct. The very fact that the Pension Regulation permits payment of Compensation Allowance to an employee dismissed from service is recognition of the fact that the nature of the misdemeanour which led to penalty of dismissal from service being inflicted is irrelevant to decide on the entitlement to be paid a Compensation Allowance. Suffice would it be to state that the requirement of the Rule is to consider whether the case is deserving of special consideration, and this would mean a look into the financial condition of the Railway employee and that of his dependents. Whether he owns a property and has some means to sustain himself and the family would be the relevant facts to be noted and considered.
10. The petitioner does not own any property. He had no means to sustain himself and his family. On his death the family has no means to sustain itself. The two daughters and the son are students. Their penury can be gathered from the fact that they continue to live in a dilapidated quarter of the Railway Authorities to which neither any water nor electricity is being supplied. Who would live in such a hell hole? Except he/she whose compulsion it is to live a virtual animal existence.
11. We would have ordinarily required the respondents to consider paying a Compassionate Allowance to the deceased petitioner and such amount as would be payable to his family upon his death, if the respondents did not have an occasion to consider the said request. But, as noted hereinabove, said request was made as per pleadings in C.M.No.1471/2012 to which the respondents have filed a response, and since as per the response the reason to deny Compassionate Allowance is found to be not tenable in law, we dispose of the writ petition and the application, directing the Competent Authority of the Northern Railway to sanction a Compassionate Allowance in the name of the deceased petitioner as also gratuity payable with reference to the number of years deceased petitioner served the Indian Railways and after computing the amount till petitioner died on October 16, 2008, to pay the said amount to the wife of the deceased petitioner and with effect from October 17, 2008 pay to her such amount as would be payable with reference to the Compassionate Allowance sanctioned in the name of her husband. Since as per the Rule, the Compassionate Allowance has to be a percentage of the Compensation Pension but not exceeding two-thirds thereof, we leave it to the decision of the Competent Authority to determine what percentage of the Compensation Pension would be the appropriate Compensation Allowance. Said decision would be taken within twelve weeks of receipt of the present order and the computed amount would be paid to the wife of the petitioner as also future Compensation Allowance payable to the family of the late petitioner as per rules.
12. No costs.
8. He has also relied upon the judgment of the Honble High Court of Delhi in W.P. ( C) No.5127/2012 Ramesh Kumar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others decided on 23.08.2012. The relevant part of the said judgment reads as under:-
4. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to the order dated September 15, 2011 passed by the competent authority holding that since the petitioner has not rendered qualifying pensionable service; compassionate allowance cannot be sanctioned.
5. Only recently, i.e. on August 16, 2012, disposing of W.P.(C)No.1989/1999 Ex.Const.Ram Niwas Vs. UOI & Ors. In paragraphs 5 to 9 it was observed as under:-
5. Learned counsel for the respondents states that the petitioner joined service in April 1988 and pensionable service being 20 years, the petitioner being dismissed from service on June 22, 1998, he would not be entitled to any compassionate allowance.
6. Now, Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) 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 be less than the amount of Rupees three hundred and seventy five.
7. It is apparent that the compassionate allowance admissible under the Rule relates itself not to pension but compensation pension. As per the Rule a Compassionate Allowance not exceeding two-third of pension or gratuity admissible if the retirement was on Compensation Pension is admissible. Now, Rule 39 of the CCS (Pension) Rules reads as under:-
39. Compensation pension (1) If a Government servant is selected for discharge owing to the abolition of his permanent post, he shall, unless he is appointed to another post the conditions of which are deemed by the authority competent to discharge him to be at least equal to those of his own, have the option
(a) of taking compensation pension to which he may be entitled for the service he had rendered, or
(b) of accepting another appointment on such pay as may be offered and continuing to count his previous service for pension.
(2) (a) Notice of at least three months shall be given to Government servant in permanent employment before his services are dispensed with on the abolition of his permanent post.
(b) Where notice of at least three months is not given and the Government servant has not been provided with other employment on the date on which his services are dispensed with, the authority competent to dispense with his services may sanction the payment of a sum not exceeding the pay and allowances for the period by which the notice actually given to him falls short of three months.
(c) No compensation pension shall be payable for the period in respect of which he receives pay and allowance in lieu of notice.
(3) In case a Government servant is granted pay and allowances for the period by which the notice given to him falls short of three months and he is re-employed before the expiry of the period for which he has received pay and allowances, he shall refund the pay and allowances so received for the period following his re-employment.
(4) If a Government servant who is entitled to compensation pension accepts instead another appointment under the Government and subsequently becomes entitled to receive a pension of any class, the amount of such pension shall not be less than the compensation pension which he could have claimed if he had not accepted the appointment.
8. Suffice would it be to state that compensation pension is not related to any length of service rendered. Compensation pension is to be paid if a government servant is discharged owing to a permanent post being abolished and the quantum is relatable to the years of service rendered.
9. Thus, declaring that the Compassionate Allowance is referable to Compensation Pension, which pension has no concern to a minimum number of years served but is payable with reference to the number of years of service rendered, we dispose of the writ petition directing the Competent Authority to pass an order with respect to Compensation Allowance and for which we may note that the same is not a matter of right but a matter of a considered decision and if it is shown that the case is deserving of special consideration, which obviously would have to be the financial condition of the government servant concerned; and thus requiring the petitioner to submit a proper application addressed to the Director General BSF. We guide the petitioner that in the application he should bring out such circumstances which he considers would make out a deserving case for Compensation Allowance to be paid to him. Upon the application being filed, and for which we grant petitioner 12 weeks time, the same shall be decided within further 12 weeks thereafter.
6. Adopting the reasoning as aforesaid, we dispose of the instant writ petition quashing the impugned order dated September 15, 2011 and simultaneously direct the competent authority to treat the petitioner eligible for payment of compassionate allowance and, in view of the eligibility, pass necessary order within six weeks from today.
7. No costs.
9. The Respondents have filed their reply stating that grant of compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 is the discretionary power entrusted to the competent authority. According to the guiding principles governing the said rule, whether the course of misconduct carries with it legitimate inference that the officers conduct has been dishonest, there can seldom be any good case for compassionate allowance. Further, it has been clarified that poverty is not an essential condition precedent for grant of compassionate allowance. In the instant case, the Applicant was dismissed from service on the allegations of serious misconduct of indulging in dishonest and corrupt activities endangering aviation security itself. Therefore, his request for compassionate allowance has rightly been rejected.
10. I have heard the learned counsel for the Applicant Ms. Manashi Pathak and the learned counsel for the Respondents Ms. Ritika Chawla. The Honble Supreme Court of India has re-considered the question of grant of compassionate allowance to the dismissed employees and prescribed some parameters in its recent judgment in Civil Appeal No.2111/2009 Mahinder Dutt Sharma VS. Union of India and Others decided on 11.04.2014 2014 (Law Suit (SC) 279). The operative part of the said order reads as under:-
13. In our considered view, the determination of a claim based under Rule 41 of the Pension Rules, 1972, will necessarily have to be sieved through an evaluation based on a series of distinct considerations, some of which are illustratively being expressed hereunder:-
(i) Was the act of the delinquent, which resulted in the infliction of the punishment of dismissal or removal from service, an act of moral turpitude? An act of moral turpitude, is an act which has an inherent quality of baseness, vileness or depravity with respect to a concerned persons duty towards another, or to the society in general. In criminal law, the phrase is used generally to describe a conduct which is contrary to community standards of justice, honesty and good morals. Any debauched, degenerate or evil behaviour would fall in this classification.
(ii) Was the act of the delinquent, which resulted in the infliction of the punishment of dismissal or removal from service, an act of dishonesty towards his employer? Such an action of dishonesty would emerge from a behaviour which is untrustworthy, deceitful and insincere, resulting in prejudice to the interest of the employer. This could emerge from an unscrupulous, untrustworthy and crooked behaviour, which aims at cheating the employer. Such an act may or may not be aimed at personal gains. It may be aimed at benefiting a third party, to the prejudice of the employer.
(iii) Was the act of the delinquent, which resulted in the infliction of the punishment of dismissal or removal from service, an act designed for personal gains, from the employer? This would involve acts of corruption, fraud or personal profiteering, through impermissible means by misusing the responsibility bestowed in an employee by an employer. And would include, acts of double dealing or racketeering, or the like. Such an act may or may not be aimed at causing loss to the employer. The benefit of the delinquent, could be at the peril and prejudice of a third party.
(iv) Was the act of the delinquent, which resulted in the infliction of the punishment of dismissal or removal from service, aimed at deliberately harming a third party interest? Situations hereunder would emerge out of acts of disservice causing damage, loss, prejudice or even anguish to third parties, on account of misuse of the employees authority to control, regulate or administer activities of third parties. Actions of dealing with similar issues differently, or in an iniquitous manner, by adopting double standards or by foul play, would fall in this category.
(v) Was the act of the delinquent, which resulted in the infliction of the punishment of dismissal or removal from service, otherwise unacceptable, for the conferment of the benefits flowing out of Rule 41 of the Pension Rules, 1972? Illustratively, any action which is considered as depraved, perverted, wicked, treacherous or the like, as would disentitle an employee for such compassionate consideration.
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, 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 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, 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 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, subject to availability of factors of compassionate consideration.
15. We shall now venture to apply the aforesaid criterion, to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, and decipher therefrom, whether the appellant before this Court ought to have been granted compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the Pension Rules, 1972. The appellant was punished by an order dated 17.5.1996 with dismissal from service. The accusations levelled against the appellant were limited to his unauthorized and willful absence from service from 18.1.1995 to 4.12.1995 (i.e., for a period of 320 days, 18 hours and 30 minutes). The above order of punishment also notices, that not taking stern action against the appellant, would create a bad impression, on the new entrants in the police service. The punishing authority while making a choice of the punishment imposed on the appellant, also recorded, that the appellants behaviour was incorrigible. Thus viewed, there can be no doubt, that the order of dismissal from service imposed on the appellant was fully justified. For determining the question of compassionate allowance, so as to bring it within the realm of the parameters laid down in Rule 41 of the Pension Rules, 1972, it is first necessary to evaluate, whether the wrongdoing alleged against the appellant, was of a nature expressed in paragraph 13 of the instant judgment. Having given our thoughtful consideration on the above aspect of the matter, we do not find the delinquency for which the appellant was punished, as being one which can be described as an act of moral turpitude, nor can it be concluded that the allegations made against the appellant constituted acts of dishonesty towards his employer. The appellants behaviour, was not one which can be expressed as an act designed for illegitimate personal gains, from his employer. The appellant, cannot also be stated to have indulged in an activity to harm a third party interest, based on the authority vested in him, nor was the behaviour of the appellant depraved, perverted, wicked or treacherous. Accordingly, even though the delinquency alleged and proved against the appellant was sufficient for imposition of punishment of dismissal from service, it does not fall in any of the classifications/categories depicted in paragraph 13 of the instant judgment. Therefore, the availability of compassionate consideration, even of a lesser degree should ordinarily satisfy the competent authority, about the appellants deservedness for an affirmative consideration.
16. We shall only endeavour to delineate a few of the considerations which ought to have been considered, in the present case for determining whether or not, the appellant was entitled to compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the Pension Rules, 1972. In this behalf it may be noticed, that the appellant had rendered about 24 years of service, prior to his dismissal from service, vide order dated 17.5.1996. During the above tenure, he was granted 34 good entries, including 2 commendation rolls awarded by Commissioner of Police, 4 commendation certificates awarded by the Additional Commissioner of Police and 28 commendation cards awarded by the Deputy Commissioner of Police. Even though the charge proved against the appellant pertains to his unauthorized and willful absence from service, there is nothing on the record to reveal, that his absence from service was aimed at seeking better pastures elsewhere. No such inference is even otherwise possible, keeping in view the length of service rendered by the appellant. There is no denial, that the appellant was involved, during the period under consideration, in a criminal case, from which he was subsequently acquitted. One of his brothers died, and thereafter, his father and brothers wife also passed away. His own wife was suffering from cancer. All these tribulations led to his own ill-health, decipherable from the fact that he was suffering from hypertension and diabetes. It is these considerations, which ought to have been evaluated by the competent authority, to determine whether the claim of the appellant deserved special consideration, as would entitle him to compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the Pension Rules, 1972.
17. None of the authorities on the administrative side, not even the Tribunal or the High Court, applied the above parameters to determine the claim of the appellant for compassionate allowance. We are of the view, that the consideration of the appellants claim, was clearly misdirected. All the authorities merely examined the legitimacy of the order of dismissal. And also, whether the delay by the appellant, in filing the appeal against the punishment order dated 17.5.1996, was legitimate. The basis, as well as, the manner of consideration, for a claim for compassionate allowance, has nothing to do with the above aspects. Accordingly, while accepting the instant appeal, we set aside the order dated 25.4.2005 (passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, IInd Battalion, Delhi Armed Police, Delhi), rejecting the prayer made by the appellant for grant of compassionate allowance. The order passed by the Tribunal dated 28.2.2006, and the order passed by the High Court dated 13.11.2006, are also accordingly hereby set aside. Having held as above, we direct the competent authority to reconsider the claim of the appellant, for the grant of compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the Pension Rules, 1972, based on the parameters laid down hereinabove.
18. Allowed in the aforesaid terms.
11. In the above position, I direct the Respondents to reconsider the request of the Applicant for compassionate allowance in terms of the aforesaid directions of the Apex Court. They shall apply the parameters of consideration prescribed in the aforesaid judgment in the case of the Applicant and then pass appropriate orders under intimation to him within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
12. Accordingly, this OA is disposed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(G.George Paracken) Member(J) Rakesh