AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In the current OA, the applicant has challenged the order dated 09.01.2018 passed by the respondents by which the applicant has been denied compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The applicant had challenged the order dated 28.09.2017 passed by respondent no.3 in another OA No.4192/2017. In the said OA, a direction was given to the respondents vide order dated 29.11.2017 to decide the representation of the applicant (Annexure A-4) by way of a reasoned and speaking order. The respondents, after considering the request of the applicant have rejected his claim for compassionate allowance vide impugned orders dated 09.01.2018.
The applicant is before the Tribunal once again for grant of compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. He submits that the issue raised by him in the representation have not been discussed comprehensively in the aforesaid impugned order.
Briefly, the applicant working as Conductor with DTC, was removed from service on 22.04.1993 and reinstated in on 17.06.1998 without back wages. He was again removed from service w.e.f.23.11.2001. Due to his unsatisfactory service record the respondents have held that he is not entitled for the compassionate allowance.
The respondents have referred to leave record of the applicant from the date of appointment upto his removal from service which is as under :-
"The leave record from date of appointment up to removal of the employee is as under:-
Year
LWP
1983
-
03
1984
-
43
1985
-
21
1986
-
16
1987
-
21
1988
-
78
1989
-
199
1990
-
27
1991
-
115
1992
-
152
1993
-
45 Removed from the service w.e.f.22.04.199322.04.1993 to 16.06.1998 Under Removal
1998
-
05 Re-instate in service w.e.f.17.06.98 without backwages
1999
-
287
2000
-
330
2001
-
327 again removed from the service w.e.f.23.11.2001"
The respondents state that the removal order dated 22.04.1993 was set aside reinstating the applicant in service without back wages by the competent authority, on humanitarian ground. However, the applicant did not mend his ways and continued with his habit of remaining absent from duty. Hence, the respondents feel that he is not entitled for grant of compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
A perusal of the case file shows that the applicant in his representation dated 01.08.2017 Annexure A-8 of the current OA (Annexure A-4 in the earlier OA) has mentioned various reasons for his remaining absent from duty. He has also made a mention of the financial hardships which he was suffering from, alongwith his family liabilities and prayed that the respondents should decide his case keeping in mind the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Mahinder Dutt Sharma Vs. Union of India and Others (2014) 11 SCC 684.
The direction of the Tribunal passed in OA No.4192/2017 dated 29.11.2017 was that the respondents should decide Annexure A-4 representation of the applicant by way of a reasoned and speaking order. I find that the respondents have complied the said order by passing an exhaustive order dated 09.01.2018.
It is relevant to re-produce the Rule 41 of CCS Pension Rules, 1972 to understand the spirit behind this particular provision as laid down by Government of India.
"(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 removal him from service may, if the case is deserving of special consideration, sanction a compassionate allowance not exceeding two-thirds of pension or gratuity of 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 thousand five hundered) per mensem."
A perusal of the rule shows that compassionate allowance cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is only if the competent authority feels that a case deserves a special consideration then such an allowance can be sanctioned.
The past history of the applicant speaks volume for his lack of devotion and lack of commitment to the organisation. The datewise/yearwise chronology of events has been dealt with by the respondents in the impugned order and needs no further elaboration.
During the course of hearing the learned counsel for the applicant argued on the issues which have already been considered and dealt with by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in their order dated 31.05.2017 in WP (C) No.5137/2017 (Nanak Chand Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi). In the said petition the applicant had assailed the order of CAT dated 07.03.2017 in OA No.3393/2016 by which the Tribunal had dismissed the prayer of the applicant who had assailed the punishment of removal from service w.e.f.23.11.2001. Commenting on the conduct of the applicant, the Hon'ble High Court has observed that.
".... Pertinently, after nearly five years of the passing of the appellate order, the petitioner one fine day decided to file the O.A. in the year 2016.
It appears to us that the petitioner has absolutely no sense of time or responsibility. Evidently, he acted like his own master. He has treated his service with utter contempt, and with no sense of accountability.
After remaining unauthorisedly absent for 13 days when he was departmentally proceeded, he chose not to participate in the inquiry and again remained absent. He refused to accept notice and even publication had to be resorted to in the year 2001. Despite publication of notice, he did not respond to the show cause notice issued to him post inquiry. He was removed from service in 2001, and he claimed to have remained oblivious, because the order was allegedly not served upon him. This itself shows that the petitioner never bothered to attend his duties or to even follow up the enquiry proceedings. He claimed to have learnt about the order of removal through an application made under the RTI Act.
We fail to understand how an employee who claims that he was ready and willing to offer himself for duty, could prefer his appeal after nearly ten years against his order of removal from service. The appeal was rejected repeatedly on 04.02.2011 and 18.05.2011. Even thereafter, he did not bother about the matter and approached the tribunal after five years. In these circumstances, the O.A. was highly belated, and barred by limitation. The tribunal, in our view, has correctly dismissed the O.A. in the aforesaid background.
In view of the above, we find no merit in this petition.
Dismissed."
In their counter, in para 4.2 the respondents have discussed in detail the incorrigible behaviour of the applicant of remaining absent from duty and also of not co-operating with the enquiry proceedings.
The applicant might be facing financial hardships but sufficient opportunities have been granted to him to improve which he has failed to do. The respondents have to run a corporation, and misplaced compassion at the cost of other deserving and committed employees, is neither expected nor warranted.
In view of the same, I find no reason to interfere in the impugned order. The OA is dismissed as being devoid of merits. No costs.