Delhi High Court
Smt. Om Wati vs Reserve Bank Of India And Anr. on 10 January, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: January 10, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 243/2018 & C.M. 1043/2018
SMT. OM WATI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nitin S. Tambwekar &
Mr. Seshatalpa Sai Bandaru, Advocates
Versus
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.K.S. Parihar & Mr. H.S.
Parihar, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. This is fourth round of litigation. Vide order of 3rd March, 2015
(Annexure P-6), respondents' plea of denial of compassionate allowance
on the ground that it can be granted to employees who had received the
pension, was negated and respondents were directed to consider
petitioner's case for grant of compassionate allowance within a particular
time frame. Vide impugned order of 24th November, 2015 (Annexure P-
10), petitioner's Representation seeking compassionate allowance has
been rejected by observing that medical certificate of petitioner's husband
was not produced and DoPT guidelines of 20th July, 1988 are applicable
to all Government servants and not to employees of respondent -bank and
that misconduct of petitioner's husband disentitles petitioner to receive
compassionate allowance in terms of Regulation 27 of Reserve Bank of
W.P. (C) 243/2018 Page 1of 3
India Pension Regulations, 1990.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner assails the impugned order by
submitting that DoPT Circular of 20th July, 1988 gives the guidelines for
grant of allowance on compassionate grounds and misconduct of
petitioner's husband was not such, which should disentitle petitioner to
grant of compassionate allowance, as due to illness, petitioner's husband
was forced to remain on leave and integrity of petitioner's husband was
never the subject matter of any inquiry. Reliance is placed upon a
Division Bench decision of this court in Balbir Singh Vs. Union of India
& Ors, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 6418, to submit that relevant consideration
for grant of compassionate allowance is years of service rendered by an
employee and means of sustenance, number of family members to
support etc.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents supports the
impugned order and submits that compassionate allowance has been
rightly denied to petitioner.
4. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order, material on record
and decision cited, I find that DoPT Circular of 20th July, 1988 may not
bind respondents but it provides guidelines for grant of compassionate
allowance, which ought to be considered by the respondents while
considering the case for grant of compassionate allowance. It needs to be
stressed that the nature of misconduct is not required to be considered but
the poverty aspect has to be taken into consideration. In the instant case,
service of petitioner's husband was terminated on account of his long
leave due to ill health and not on account of any misconduct. It is
W.P. (C) 243/2018 Page 2of 3
relevant to note that petitioner's husband died way back in the year 2004
and now to seek medical record of petitioner's husband, is not at all
justified, particularly when no misconduct is attributable to petitioner's
husband, who had rendered unblemished service of thirty two years.
5. Petitioner, in the application for grant of compassionate allowance,
has asserted that she was earlier dependent upon her son but now her son
has disassociated himself from her and she has no source of income and
that she is a senior citizen and is suffering for a long time and is in
desperate need of compassionate allowance. It is pertinent to note that
the aforesaid stand taken by petitioner has not been controverted in the
impugned order. The ratio of decision in Balbir Singh (Supra), squarely
applies to the facts of this case.
6. In view of aforesaid, impugned order is hereby quashed and
respondents are directed to sanction compassionate allowance to
petitioner from the date of the application, within a period of six weeks,
failing which respondents shall pay interest @6% p.a. on the arrears of
compassionate allowance.
7. With aforesaid directions, this petition and application are disposed
of.
Dasti.
SUNIL GAUR
(JUDGE)
JANUARY 10, 2018
r
W.P. (C) 243/2018 Page 3of 3
