Delhi High Court: The petition was filed by the petitioner seeking compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, following the dismissal of her deceased husband from service, contending that despite his dismissal for unauthorized absenteeism, the dire financial situation of her family warranted special consideration for compassionate relief. A division bench of C. Hari Shankar and Sudhir Kumar Jain, JJ., held that the petitioner’s family, facing dire financial circumstances, was entitled to compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, despite the dismissal of the petitioner’s husband for unauthorized absenteeism, as the provision allows for such relief in cases of severe financial hardship.
The petitioner, the wife of deceased, a Safai Karamchari employed in a subordinate office of the Ministry of Defence, filed the present petition seeking compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The deceased began his employment in 1976 and was regularized in 1980, reportedly suffered from psychological issues and would often leave his family for extended periods without notice. In 1997, the deceased left for work and never returned. The petitioner later learned through a third party that the deceased had passed away in Pune in 1998. She obtained his death certificate and submitted it to his office, hoping to secure financial support for herself and her unemployed sons, as she could no longer work due to age and health issues.
The petitioner’s request for compassionate allowance was denied after an inquiry under the Right to Information Act revealed that deceased had been dismissed from service in 1997, following disciplinary action due to repeated unauthorized absences. Despite being dismissed, the petitioner argued that she and her family were in dire financial straits and that compassionate allowance should be considered due to their critical condition. When her representations to the authorities were rejected, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), seeking relief. However, the Tribunal dismissed her plea, citing the deceased’s history of misconduct and habitual absenteeism, prompting her to move the present petition under Article 226.
Counsel for petitioner submitted that while he was dismissed due to misconduct, this should not automatically disqualify him from receiving compassionate allowance. The Counsel contended that the gravity of the misconduct was irrelevant to the issue of compassionate allowance, except in cases involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, or acts aimed at personal gain. It was submitted that deceased’s case did not fall within these disqualifying categories, and as such, he was entitled to compassionate consideration.
Counsel for respondent countered by emphasizing the serious nature of the deceased’s misconduct. They argued that the deceased had violated the trust inherent in his service and that his conduct justified both his dismissal and the denial of any post-dismissal benefits, including compassionate allowance. The government also referenced precedents where employees dismissed for serious misconduct were denied compassionate allowance.
The Court placed significant reliance on the principles laid down in Mahinder Dutt Sharma v. UOI, (2014) 11 SCC 684 and observed that the severity of the misconduct leading to dismissal is irrelevant unless the misconduct involves, acts of moral turpitude; dishonesty towards the employer; acts aimed at obtaining personal gains from the employer; acts deliberately harming a third-party interest and acts that were depraved or wicked.
The Court remarked that “Nearly 9 years have elapsed since the petitioner applied for compassionate allowance. She has not received any compassionate allowance till date.”
The Court further noted that the entitlement to compassionate allowance should be examined first by determining whether the misconduct falls into any of the above disqualifying categories. If not, the Court must consider whether there are special circumstances that warrant compassionate consideration, and in doing so, the Court should adopt a broad and compassionate approach.
The Court criticized the Tribunal for focusing on the misconduct rather than the deceased’s overall service record and personal circumstances. The court emphasized that, in line with the Mahinder Dutt Sharma judgment (supra), the nature of the misconduct should not automatically disqualify an employee unless it meets the specific criteria outlined above.
Thus, the Court held that the circumstances in which the petitioner is placed clearly make a case for special consideration for award of compassionate allowance. Accordingly, the Court set aside the Tribunal’s decision and granted compassionate allowance in accordance with the rules and policy applicable in that regard.
[Usha Devi v. UOI, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7116, decided on 08-10-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Ms. Sriparna Chatterjee and Mr. Soumitra Chatterjee, Advocates for petitioner
Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocates for respondents
