Smt. Ram Kala Widow Of Late L/Nk ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2007 Latest Caselaw 517 Del

JUDGMENT

S.N. Aggarwal, J.

1. The widow of dismissed Army personnel Ex L/NK Sukh Ram Yadav of 31 BN, CRPF has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to sanction family pension to her with effect from 17.8.2001 and also to pay the arrears of pension and gratuity which was due to her deceased husband.

2. The deceased husband of the petitioner was enlisted in CRPF on 5.6.1971. In due course, he was promoted to the rank of L/NK. He was placed under suspension on 28.6.1993 and was charge-sheeted on 23.7.1993 under Section 11(1) CRPF Act, 1949 and after inquiry he was dismissed from Army service on 25.1.1994. After his dismissal, he did not challenge the impugned order of his dismissal till he died on 17.8.2001. After his death his widow, petitioner herein, made a representation to the CRPF authorities in January, 2002 to consider her case for release of family pension. On 3.4.2002, the petitioner was informed by Commandant 31 BN CRPF, New Delhi about the rejection of her claim for family pension. She was also informed to the same effect by DIG, CRPF on 18.4.2002. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition on 10.8.2005, that is, after more than 11 years of the dismissal of her husband from service and after about four years of his death.

3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the impugned dismissal order of petitioner's deceased husband is violative of Article 20 of the Constitution of India. He has further contended that as per the inquiry report itself, there was no evidence of molestation of the girl of L/NK Khehoto Sema but the charge proved against him was only for misbehavior with the said girl. The learned Counsel has further relied upon the provisions contained in Rule 41 of CCS Pension Rules and urged that the competent authority should have, at least, awarded compassionate allowance to the deceased husband of the petitioner though he was dismissed from service as his case deserved special consideration in terms of the aforesaid Rule. The learned Counsel has also argued that the punishment awarded to the deceased husband of the petitioner was disproportionate to the charges of alleged misconduct proved against him in the inquiry.

4. We have carefully considered all the above arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the entire material on record. We find that the impugned dismissal order was passed by the competent authority way back in the year 1994 and the deceased husband of the petitioner against whom the said order was passed did not challenge the same during his lifetime, that is, till 17.8.2001, the date of his death. He thereby accepted the order of dismissal from service passed against him. His widow has filed the instant writ petition after about four years of the death of her husband and, in our view, she has no locus standi to dispute the impugned dismissal order which was not challenged by her husband during his lifetime though he remained alive for about seven years after passing of the said order. Rule 41 of the CCS Pension Rules disqualifies a dismissed Government servant from getting any pension or any other terminal benefits.

5. We have gone through the impugned dismissal order which is at pages 10-13 of the paper book and on going through the same, we find that there were no special circumstances for granting compassionate allowance in terms of proviso 2 Rule 41 of CCS Pension Rules to the deceased husband of the petitioner. We are further of the opinion that the right in this regard, if any, was available only to the deceased husband of the petitioner who did not take any steps for enforcement of the said right during his lifetime and, therefore, his widow is now estopped from asking for any relief with regard to family pension. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner could not explain as to how the impugned dismissal order is violative of Article 20 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, we do not find any merit in his said argument. We also do not find any merit in the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner that the punishment of dismissal from service awarded to the deceased husband of the petitioner by the competent authority was in any way disproportionate to the charges provided against him in the inquiry.

6. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.