A Division Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain disposed of the present petition seeking release of the amount of compensation pension by observing that though compensation pension is not relatable to the length of service rendered by the government servant however under special circumstances consideration has to be provided by the competent authority.
Facts in brief were that the petitioner claimed to be recruited to the post of Constable in the year 1994 by the Central Reserve Police Force.
According to the petitioner, on March 17, 2003 an argument took place between the petitioner and his superiors with respect to a training exercise undertaken by the petitioner. In subsequent to the same, the petitioner was suspended from the said service and was eventually dismissed on August 20, 2003 after an enquiry took place. In pursuance of the same, the petitioner preferred a petition and the same was dismissed. Even the revision petition preferred against the dismissal order was also dismissed on May 12, 2004.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court, however the same was stood as not maintainable due to lack of jurisdiction. Thereafter, the petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court against the dismissal orders which stood dismissed as withdrawn on March 17, 2016 with liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the competent authority for grant of compassionate allowance.
However, later petitioner received a letter dated December 2, 2016 from a department stating doubt on petitioner’s eligibility to grant of compensation pension within the rubric of compassionate allowance and entitling him eligible for only 2/3rd of service gratuity.
Consequently, the petitioner claimed that he received the modification order dated November 9, 2017 , letter dated May 9, 2018 and communication dated February, 2019 by the competent authorities of first respondent , subsequent to which letter dated September 22, 2020 was received by the petitioner denying any entitlement of compassionate allowance.
Aggrieved by the same, the present petition was filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the said order with direction to first respondent to release the amount towards compensation pension along with service gratuity w.e.f. August 21, 2003 in terms of its order(s) dated June 15, 2016 and November 9, 2017 to pay interest @ 12% pa on the aforesaid sums towards compassionate allowance from June 15, 2016 till the payment is made to the petitioner.
The Top Court after hearing the submissions of the rival parties stated that the grant of compassionate allowance granted to the petitioner stood withdrawn pursuant to the aforesaid order dated September 22, 2020 in view of Rule 41 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. It was further stated that this Court in a catena of decisions has already settled the applicability of aforesaid provisions of law in cases similar to the one in hand and thus proceed to see its applicability in the facts of the present case as well.
The Court relied to the case of Sohan Bir Singh vs. Union of India which was based on identical facts, the petitioner in this case was dismissed before completion of 10 years of service, applied provisions of Rule 41 and 39 of the Rules, this Court in pursuance of the same observed that, it is apparent that compensation pension is not relatable to any length of service rendered and is to be paid if a government servant is discharged owing to a permanent post being abolished, and the quantum is relatable to the number of years service is rendered, but upon being found to be a deserving case requiring special consideration.
With respect to the aforesaid observation, the Top Court in the instant case construed that compensation pension is not relatable to the length of service rendered by the government servant and if the case deserves, then special consideration has to be provided by the competent authority.
It was further observed that in the present case the competent authority at the first instance took a lenient view and granted compensation through a letter dated June 15, 2016. However, later on the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms took the view that petitioner’s qualifying service period is 09 years 01 month and 08 days i.e. less than 10 years and hence, no pension is admissible but 2/3rd of gratuity under Rule 41 r/w Rule 49(1) is admissible.
It was also noted that Rule 49(1) of the Pension Rules does not govern the benefit of compassionate allowance but relates to quantum of compensation, whereas grant of pension has to be dealt with in Rule 35-41 of the Pension Rules, enumerates that the compensation pension is not relatable to the length of service rendered by the government servant, the Court observed. Also, it is not the case of respondents that in the past a government employee was never kept in a special consideration zone or provided compensation pension, Court remarked.
In light of the above findings, the Court set aside the impugned order dated September 22, 2020 and the competent authority was directed to release the amount along with the service gratuity. Accordingly, the petition was disposed of.
Case name: GAURI SHANKAR Vs. CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE
Picture Source :
