Vinay Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors.

Mr. M.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Devendra Narayan Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents are present and heard.

The instant original application has been filed seeking following reliefs: -

The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed as a Postal Assistant in Jaunpur Postal Division on compassionate grounds on 08.03.1977. While in service, he was implicated in a criminal case under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. He was convicted by the Trial Court vide judgment dated 23.06.2007. Consequently, the Superintendent of Post Offices, Jaunpur Division, passed an order dated 22.01.2008 dismissing him from service. The applicant’s departmental appeal dated 05.02.2008 was rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 11.08.2008, and his subsequent revision petition was rejected as time-barred vide order dated 21.10.2016. Thereafter, the applicant submitted a representation dated 11.03.2024 seeking grant of compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The said request was rejected by respondent No. 4 vide order dated 29.04.2024 on the ground that the application had not been submitted within the prescribed time limit. Subsequently, the applicant submitted another representation dated 28.08.2024 before respondent No. 3, reiterating his request for grant of compassionate allowance. Aggrieved by the rejection of his claim, the applicant has approached this Tribunal.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant’s claim for compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 was rejected vide order dated 29.04.2024 on the ground of limitation, without proper consideration of his claim. He submitted that although the applicant had been dismissed from service following his conviction in the criminal case, his claim for compassionate allowance deserved independent consideration under the relevant provisions of the said Rules. He further submitted that the applicant had made representations dated 11.03.2024 and 28.08.2024 seeking compassionate allowance, but his claim had not been duly considered on its merits. He, therefore, prayed that the impugned order may be set aside and the competent authority be directed to reconsider the applicant’s claim by passing a reasoned and speaking order.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the claim and submitted that the applicant was dismissed from service vide order dated 22.01.2008 following his conviction in the criminal case. His departmental appeal was rejected vide order dated 11.08.2008, and his revision petition was subsequently rejected as time-barred vide order dated 21.10.2016. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant’s request for compassionate allowance, made on 11.03.2024 under Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, was rejected vide letter dated 29.04.2024 because it had not been submitted within the prescribed time limit. He relied upon Rule 41(4) and (5) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, contending that where an order of dismissal or removal from service had been passed before commencement of the said Rules and the question of grant of compassionate allowance had not been examined or decided, the competent authority was required to take a decision within the period prescribed under the Rules. According to the respondents, the prescribed period had expired and the applicant’s request could not, therefore, be entertained. Learned counsel for the respondents also referred to the communication dated 28.06.2024 issued in connection with the first appeal filed by the applicant under the Right to Information Act, 2005. On these grounds, learned counsel for the respondents prayed for dismissal of the Original Application.

The respondents have filed a counter affidavit dated 08.05.2025, reiterating that the applicant was dismissed from service vide order dated 22.01.2008 following his conviction in the criminal case. The respondents have further stated that the applicant’s application dated 11.03.2024 for grant of compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 was rejected vide letter dated 29.04.2024 on the ground that it had not been submitted within the prescribed time limit. The respondents have also relied upon the relevant provisions of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021. The counter affidavit further refers to a communication dated 28.06.2024, however, the communication annexed to the counter affidavit pertains to the disposal of the applicant’s first appeal under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The respondents have accordingly maintained that the applicant’s claim was rightly rejected.

The applicant has not filed any rejoinder affidavit to controvert the averments made in the counter affidavit. However, learned counsel for the applicant reiterated that the applicant’s grievance, as raised in the representations dated 11.03.2024 and 28.08.2024, requires consideration by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable rules. He, therefore, prayed that an appropriate direction may be issued to the respondents to decide the applicant’s claim by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a stipulated period.

I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. The applicant seeks reconsideration of his claim for grant of compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, whereas the respondents have justified the rejection of his request on the basis of the time limit prescribed under Rule 41(4) and (5) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021. The record indicates that the applicant’s request was rejected vide order dated 29.04.2024. The counter affidavit also refers to a communication dated 28.06.2024, however, the communication annexed to the counter affidavit relates to the disposal of the applicant’s first appeal under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and does not constitute a decision on the merits of the applicant’s claim for compassionate allowance.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the applicant’s substantive entitlement to compassionate allowance or on the merits of the rival contentions regarding limitation and the applicability of the relevant provisions of the CCS (Pension) Rules, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the Original Application with a direction to the competent authority to reconsider and decide the applicant’s claim for compassionate allowance raised in his representations dated 11.03.2024 and 28.08.2024, in accordance with the applicable rules and the facts and circumstances of the case. While doing so, the competent authority shall examine the applicant’s claim in the light of Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, and the relevant provisions of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 relied upon by the respondents, including the objection relating to the prescribed time limit. A reasoned and speaking order shall be passed and communicated to the applicant within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Original Application stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

All pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, stand disposed of.