Ram Lal Meena vs Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi And Ors

Aradhana Johri, Member (A)

The applicant Sh. Ram Lal Meena was Constable in Delhi Police. He was dismissed on 21.05.2004. Subsequent to the O.A, he filed an appeal in the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and SLP in the Hon'ble Apex Court, which were all dismissed. Thereafter, the applicant filed a representation on 05.09.2016 for compassionate allowance in terms of Rule 41 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. This representation was turned down on several occasions. Orders were passed by the competent authority on 19.10.2016 and 16.08.2017. These orders were set aside by this Tribunal in O.A No. 4043/2017 on 08.03.2019 with the following directions :-

"12. In view of the above, the O.A is partly allowed. The orders of the respondents dated 16.08.2017 and 19.10.2016 are hereby set aside and the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the applicant afresh for grant of compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 based on the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mahinder Dutt Sharma (supra). No order as to costs."

Thereafter, the respondents one again rejected the claim of the applicant for compassionate allowance vide order dated 06.06.2019, which order has been challenged in this O.A.

The applicant has stated that his financial position is precarious. Further he has also listed his various family responsibilities which are collegiate and school going children, aged mother etc. He has prayed for grant of compassionate allowance and setting aside of order dated 06.06.2019.

The respondents have denied the claim of the applicant. They have given a detailed account of the circumstances leading to the dismissal of the applicant and stated that since the Delhi Police is a disciplined force, grant of compassionate allowance will give the wrong signal.

Heard Mr. Piyush Sharma, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Amit Yadav, learned counsel for respondents.

First of all it becomes necessary to see Rule 41 of CCS (Pension) Rules, which deals with compassionate allowance. Rule 41 along with the G.I., F.D., Office Memo No. 3(2)-R-II/40, dated the 22nd April, 1940 reads as under:-

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 1[compensation pension].

(2) A compassionate allowance sanctioned under the proviso to sub-rule (1) shall not be less than the amount of 2[Rupees three hundred and seventy-five] per mensem.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA'S DECISION

(1) Guiding principles for the grant of Compassionate Allowance. - It is practically impossible in view of the wide variations that naturally exist in the circumstances attending each case, to lay down categorically precise principles that can uniformly be applied to individual cases. Each case has, therefore, to be considered on its merits and a conclusion has to be reached on the question whether there were any such extenuating features in the case as would make the punishment awarded, though it may have been necessary in the interests of Government, unduly hard on the individual. In considering this question it has been the practice to take into account not only the actual misconduct or course of misconduct which occasioned the dismissal or removal of the officer, but also the kind of service he has rendered. Where the course of misconduct carries with it the legitimate inference that the officer's service has been dishonest, there can seldom be any good case for a compassionate allowance. Poverty is not an essential condition precedent to the grant of a compassionate allowance, but special regard is also occasionally paid to the fact that the officer has a wife and children dependent upon him, though this factor by itself is not, except perhaps in the most exceptional circumstances, sufficient for the grant of a compassionate allowance.

[G.I., F.D., Office Memo. No. 3(2)-R-II/40, dated the 22nd April, 1940.]"

The present case has to be seen in light of Rule 41 as well as this Court's order dated 08.03.2019.The disciplinary authority on 06.06.2019 has passed a long order in which he has listed the principles given in the Hon'ble Apex Court ruling in the case of Mohinder Dutt Sharma Vs. Union of India and Others, (2014) 11 SCC 684. No where does this order state as to whether the applicants' case is covered under the situations given in this ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Further, even though the applicant has given details of his financial condition, including his land ownership etc, there is no reference whatsoever to this in the said order. No doubt poverty is not the only condition for grant of compassionate allowance, but special regard is also occasionally paid to the fact that the officer has a wife and children dependent upon him. Again this factor by itself is not, sufficient for grant of compassionate allowance except perhaps in the most exceptional circumstances.

In light of above, impugned order dated 06.06.2019 is set aside. Respondents are directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order in light of the above observations within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No order as to costs.