Delhi High Court
Udai Singh Yadav vs Kendriya Vidalaya Sangthan & Anr on 6 February, 2019
$~28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 06.02.2019
+ W.P.(C) 1244/2019
UDAI SINGH YADAV ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjjan K. Singh and Ms.Anjali
Jain, Advocates.
versus
KENDRIYA VIDALAYA SANGTHAN & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. S. Rajappa, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.CHAWLA
JUDGMENT
VIPIN SANGHI, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 5621/2019
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 1244/2019
2. Writ petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to assail the
order dated 17.09.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Principal Bench, New Delhi ('Tribunal') in OA No.4077/2016 whereby the
petitioner's said Original Application has been dismissed.
3. The petitioner had preferred the said Original Application to seek a
direction to the respondent to make payment of his earned leave
encashment, to pay to him gratuity and interest on the PF account.
4. The petitioner was terminated from service on 24.10.2008 on account
of his being found guilty of indulging in acts involving moral turpitude on a
complaint of a girl student of the KVS School where he was serving. He was
terminated by giving three months' salary in lieu of the notice of
termination. His Original Application was rejected and his writ petition i.e.
W.P.(C) 8440/2011 was also dismissed by this Court. The Special Leave
Petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court. Thereafter, he preferred the
aforesaid Original Application. The Tribunal dismissed the Original
Application on the premise that the petitioner is not entitled to gratuity or
pension in terms of Rule 24 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, which provides that
dismissal or removal of a Government servant from service or post entails
forfeiture of his past service.
5. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, firstly, is that the
petitioner's case should be considered for grant of compassionate allowance
under Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules.
6. A terminated or dismissed employee has no right to demand, as a
matter of right, compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the CCS
(Pension) Rules. It depends on the facts of each case, whether the
Government should exercise its discretion for grant of compassionate
allowance. In a case which involves conduct of the kind of which the
petitioner has been found guilty, namely, of indulging in conduct involving
moral turpitude with the complainant-girl student, it certainly cannot be said
that such compassion should be shown by the Government, merely because
the petitioner claims to have rendered about 28 years of service. There has to
be zero tolerance for such serious misconduct and show of compassion
would be highly misplaced and send a wrong message to the community.
The next submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
petitioner was entitled to earned leave encashment and GIS amount etc. He
has referred to the communication dated 20/21.06.2016 issued by the
respondent-KVS wherein KVS has stated that release of other benefits, such
as, earned leave encashment, GIS amount etc., need to be verified as per the
records.
7. Mr. Rajappa, Advocate, who appears on behalf of the respondents on
advance notice, states that the respondent-KVS shall examine and pay to the
petitioner the amount, if any, payable to him under the law.
8. The petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the
respondent to examine the amount payable to the petitioner, if any, namely
towards his earned leave encashment, GIS etc. within the next four weeks.
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
A.K. CHAWLA, J.
FEBRUARY 06, 2019
nn
