Ex.Constable Asha Ram vs Union Of India & Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 374 Del

$~R-48

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                   Date of decision : January 24, 2013

+                         W.P.(C) 5164/2001

       EX.CONSTABLE ASHA RAM                               ..... Petitioner
                    Represented by:            Mr.Shekhar Kumar, Advocate

                          versus

       UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                     ..... Respondents
                     Represented by: Mr.Sarvpreet S. Chawla,
                     Advocate with Mr.Sachin Chopra, Advocate.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (ORAL)

1. Attempting to convince this Court that the testimony of DW-1 to DW- 4 would establish that the order requiring SHO P.S. Kashmere Gate to verify the surety Sh.Rajender Pal Singh was not prepared till May 12, 1989 and thus the petitioner has unnecessarily been held guilty, but in the teeth of the cogent reasons given by the Inquiry Officer to establish that DW-1 Shyam Lal, Ahlmad of the Court of learned ACMM, DW-2 HC Narain, Naib Court of the concerned ACMM, DW-3 Sh. Joginder Singh, Reader of the Court and DW-4 Sh.Jagdish Singh Rawat and other witnesses of the defence had not only lied but had made interpolations in the judicial record, learned counsel for the petitioner changes track and would submit that the

writ petitioner would be satisfied if directions are issued to the Competent Authority of the petitioner to consider sanctioning a Compassionate Allowance under Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 to the petitioner.

2. The reason is that the petitioner has joined Delhi Police in the year 1982 as claimed by the writ petitioner and the penalty of dismissal from service has been inflicted upon him on June 7, 1996.

3. Accordingly we dispose of the writ petition without adjudicating the issues raised in view of the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner but would simultaneously direct that upon petitioner filing a representation seeking Compassionate Allowance to be accorded to him under Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, the Competent Authority would consider the representation and pass a speaking order thereon. The Competent Authority would note the fact that pertaining to Compassionate Allowance colour has to be taken from Rule 39 of the CCS (Pension) Rules which refers to a Compensation Pension (having no minimum length of service rendered as a pre-requisite). We are so clarifying inasmuch we are noticing orders passed pertaining to Compassionate Allowance where the view taken is that the delinquent employee had not rendered pensionable service. The language of Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules would reveal that where a case is found to be a deserving case the Competent Authority can sanction a Compassionate Allowance which can be up to 2/3 rd of the Compensation Pension. Compensation Pension under Rule 39 of the CSS (Pension) Rules is payable if a Government servant loses his job on the post being abolished. Compensation Pension has no connection with the minimum length of service to be rendered. Of course, depending upon the service rendered would depend the quantum of the Compensation Pension.

4. If the Compensation Allowance is sanctioned the same shall be paid to the petitioner with effect from the date he was dismissed from service.

5. No costs.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(VEENA BIRBAL) JUDGE JANUARY 24, 2013 skb