Delhi High Court
Ex. Ct. Birender Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 1 March, 2016
Author: Hima Kohli
$~14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1721/2016
Decided on : 01.03.2016
IN THE MATTER OF:
EX. CT. BIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. A.K. Trivedi with
Mr. Ashok K. Vij, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Vivek Goyal with
Mr. Arpit Shukla, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner, who was working at the post of a Constable (GD) with
the BSF and was dismissed from service, vide order dated 12.7.2007, on the
ground of accepting an amount of Rs.13,000/- from a smuggler and allowing
safe passage to 17 cattle heads from his AOR to Bangladesh, has raised a
grievance that after passing the impugned order, he had submitted a
representation dated 13.4.2015 to the respondents requesting that he be
granted compassionate allowance, but the same was summarily rejected, vide
order dated 12.10.2015 with an observation that he was a habitual offender.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of passing the
impugned order, the respondents did not carefully consider the scope of Rule
41 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and nor have they considered the
petitioner's case in the light of several decisions of the Supreme Court and
the High Court on the aforesaid aspect, particularly the judgment dated
26.8.2010 passed by the Division Bench in WP(C)No.2556/2010 entitled
'Ex. L/NK Mahabir Prasad vs. UOI & Ors.', that was followed in
WP(C)No.2925/2013 entitled 'Balbir Singh vs. UOI & Ors.'
3. On perusing the impugned order dated 12.10.2015, it transpires that
while the respondents have referred to the fact that the petitioner was a
habitual offender and had been inflicted punishments on several occasions,
they have not considered the petitioner's socio-economic background as
sought to be highlighted by him in para 4 of his representation dated
13.4.2015. We may also note at the same time that the petitioner has also
not furnished any documents to substantiate his claim that he has an ailing
wife, who needs constant medical attention and nor has he given a profile of
his family, including his dependent son and daughter.
4. Counsel for the petitioner states that his client may be permitted to
submit a fresh representation to the respondents for grant of compassionate
allowance and at the time of making such a representation, he shall furnish
all the relevant documents which the respondents may be directed to
consider before passing a speaking order.
5. In view of the aforesaid submission, the impugned order dated
12.10.2015 is quashed and set aside and the present petition is disposed of
with liberty graned to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation for grant
of compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972
within two weeks. The respondents shall consider the said representation
and decide the same by passing a speaking order under written intimation to
the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt thereof.
6. If the grievance of the petitioner still survives, he shall be at liberty to
seek his remedies as per law.
(HIMA KOHLI)
JUDGE
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MARCH 01, 2016
sk /rkb
