Respondents have considered the case of the petitioner after considering the financial position, responsibility of children and thereafter decided to sanction compassionate allowance of Rs.3500/- to the petitioner which is permissible under clause (2) of Rule 41 of CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972: Delhi High Court
EX-SI MOHAR PAL KARDAM vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
The petitioner through this writ petition sought to quash and set aside the order of 23.04.2022 declaring it as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and against the rules on the subject. He sought to direct the competent authority to re-consider the claim of the petitioner and sanction the compassionate allowance along with arrears with interest. Petition before the HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT and HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioner was appointed as Direct Entry Sub-Inspector/Exe. in the Central Industrial Security Force on 03.01.1995 and served the CISF till 15.02.2008 this being the date of removal from service.
The petitioner was served with the charge sheet through memo on 13.10.2007 and had to undergo a departmental enquiry and thereafter, the petitioner was removed from service through an order on 15.02.2008 without any pensionary benefits.
The respondents considered the claim of the petitioner and persuaded them to pass an order on 03.06.2013 which sanctioned the compassionate allowance of Rs.3500/- under Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 with effect from 16.02.2008 and the petitioner is getting the compassionate allowance till date. The said amount was enhanced by PAO New Delhi from Rs.3500/- to Rs.9000/- from 01.01.2017 as per 7th CPC guidelines.
Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that as per sub-rule (1) Rule 41 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the competent authority should sanction a compassionate allowance not exceeding two third of pension or gratuity or both which would have been admissible to the petitioner if he had retired on compensation pension. But here the compassionate allowance has been sanctioned at the minimum to the petitioner.
The Court was of the opinion that the provisions to sub-rule (1) of Rule 41 of CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 could not be disputed. It further stated that in clause (2) of Rule 41 of the Rules provides compassionate allowance sanctioned under the proviso to sub-rule (1) would not be less than Rs.3500/- per mensen. The competent authority here has passed the order in view of sub-rule (2) of Rule 41 of CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972. The petitioner had not challenged this provision.
The Court took notice that the respondents after considering the financial position of the petitioner and his responsibility of children had decided to sanction compassionate allowance of Rs.3500/- to the petitioner which is permissible under clause (2) of Rule 41 of CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972.
The Court observed that the order passed on 16.02.2008, was also not challenged by the petitioner. The later order of enhancement was also not challenged by the petitioner.
The Court held that it found no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the respondents. Thus, found no merit in the current petition and dismissed it accordingly.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ADITYA G S.
Click here to view your judgement