Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 214 (0.60 seconds)
Documents citing Mahinder Dutt Sharma vs U.O.I & Ors on 11 April, 2014

Mohan Lal Walia vs Comm. Of Police on 9 August, 2016

19. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the main OA is allowed. The impugned order dated 01.08.2013 (Annexure A-1) is set aside. The matter is remitted back and competent authority is directed to decide the representation dated Nil (Annexure A-2) and entitlement of the applicant for compassionate allowance & compensation pension in terms of Rule 41 of CCS(Pension) Rules, ratio of law laid down in Mahinder Dutt Sharma's case (supra) and in accordance with law, by passing a speaking order, within a period of 2 10 OA No.3844/2014 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order positively. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bhupinder Singh vs Director General, Crpf And Others on 10 March, 2025

She argues that the case of the petitioner would not be at par with Mahender Dutt Sharma (supra) since the said person had an unblemished record of more than 24 years and there had only been 01 disciplinary proceeding against him. Other than that, the service record showed a good and satisfactory conduct to the satisfaction of the employer, whereas in the present case, the petitioner has failed to show himself as a disciplined member of the forces and there have been numerous instances of his being in breach of the service rules and the discipline of the unit.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Om Prakash vs Comm. Of Police on 30 November, 2017

He had however, not gone on pre-mature retirement but abstained from duties intermittently and the reasons given by him are the sad demise of his father, then his wife and later he himself had fallen sick. The total duration of absence in bits and pieces is 374 days, which is comparable to another case where the period of unauthorized absence is 340 days in the case of Mahendra Dutt Sharma (supra). Incidentally in that case also there was service with conduct for a period of 24 years, which had been taken into account to dilute the gravity of misconduct and in that case, despite dismissal, compassionate allowance was suggested by the Court. In the instant case, of course, retaining the dismissal order it is not possible to afford the applicant any reward for the period of blemish free service.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hodil Singh vs Comm. Of Police on 30 August, 2019

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings available on record. This Tribunal raised a query to the learned counsel for the applicant to substantiate as to how the case of the applicant is similar to the case of Mohinder Dutt Sharma (supra) when in the said case the Apex Court having taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner therein absented in all for a period of 320 days, 10 hours and 30 minutes and during the service of about 24 years, granted 34 good entries, including 02 commendation rolls awarded by the Commissioner of Police, 04 commendation certificates awarded by the Addl. Commissioner of Police and 28 commendation cards awarded by the Dy. Commissioner of Police whereas the case in hand does not contain the facts even close to such facts and circumstances in which Mahinder Dutt of the same force came to be considered and extended the benefit under the proviso to Rule 41 of the said rules, counsel for the applicant only submitted that applicant is having no source of income whereby he could support his wife, one minor son or himself and that the applicant has no movable/immoveable property. 10 Counsel further submitted that applicant was suffering from mental illness during the alleged period of absence and as such his case should be considered for grant of compassionate allowance in terms of the provisions of Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

G Lakshmi vs M/O Railways on 5 September, 2023

"5. On 14-08-2014, the appellant submitted a representation before the Director of General, CISF (respondent No.2) and requested sanctioning of compassionate allowance. The said representation was also rejected as per order dated 15-12-2014. The appellant, thereafter, filed W.P(C) No.7653/2015 before this Court, challenging the order rejecting his request for compassionate allowance. By judgment dated 28-06-2016 in W.P(C) No.7653/2015, this Court set aside the order of rejection passed by the official respondents and directed them to consider the representation submitted by the appellant in the light of the directions contained in the judgment of the Apex Court in Mahinder Dutta Sharma v. Union of India [(2014) 11 SCC 654].
Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Aritra Nandi vs South Eastern Railway on 3 January, 2024

10. The Honourable Apex Court, in Mahendra Dutt Sharma vs. Union of India' and Others (Supra) has observed that compassionate allowance- cannot be granted to an employee who has been dismissed or removed -from. service on. grounds of moral, turpitude, act' of dishonesty towards his employer, an act designed for personal gains from the employer, an act of fraud or corruption, an act aimed , at deliberately hurting third party intérest etc. In the instant case, the . applicant was charged -with misconduct resulting from absence from duty and not on account of the grounds mentioned above. After the said charge of misconduct was established during a Departmental Inquiry, the major penalty of removal from 'service was imposed upon the -- applicant 'The applicant is therefore entitled to grant of compassionate allowance. .
Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ramesh Chander vs Comm. Of Police on 20 September, 2022

9. It is not in dispute that the Applicant was unauthorizedly absent, 'Dishonesty' cannot be attributed to willful unauthorized absence. Secondly, for misconduct of unauthorized absence the Applicant has already been inflicted with the harsh punishment of removal from service which stands confirmed. Thirdly, from the impugned order, it is clear that the respondents have not examined the case of the Applicant while rejecting his case in true letter & spirit as the reasons so existing, resulted in the order of removal from service which have in fact been the reason for rejecting the case of the Applicant for Compassionate Allowance. Lastly, the facts of this case are squarely covered by the Judgment passed by the Apex Court in Mahinder Dutt Sharma (supra).
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Devi Singh Rana vs Railway on 30 January, 2025

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.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next