Severity Of Misconduct Leading To Dismissal Or Removal Of Employee Is Entirely Irrelevant While Examining His Right To Compassionate Allowance: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that the severity of the misconduct which resulted in tpunishment of dismissal or removal from service, is totally irrelevant to the issue of his entitlement to compassionate allowance.
The Court set aside the Central Administrative Tribunal's (Tribunal) order denying compassionate allowance to the petitioner, the widow of a deceased Safai Karamchari in the Ministry of Defence (Ministry). The Tribunal had based its decision on the deceased's habitual absenteeism and prior dismissal, stating the case did not warrant special consideration.
A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain found, "The severity of the misconduct which resulted in the awarding, to the employee, of the punishment of dismissal or removal from service, is totally irrelevant to the issue of his entitlement to compassionate allowance."
Advocate Sriparna Chatterjee appeared for the petitioner, while Senior Standing Counsel Manish Kumar represented the respondents.
The petitioner, with four children to care for and her health deteriorating, applied for a compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (Pension Rules), after the death of her husband. Despite submitting a Below Poverty Line (BPL) certificate, the Ministry rejected her application, leaving her on the verge of starvation.
Her final appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that the deceased was a habitual absentee and therefore, the petitioner did not warrant any special consideration under the compassionate allowance provisions.
Rule 41 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 deals with the dismissal of government employees and their entitlement to compassionate allowance. The Rule allows for compassionate allowance in cases deserving special consideration, provided that the misconduct leading to dismissal does not involve moral turpitude, dishonesty, or other serious ethical violations.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Mahinder Dutt Sharma v. Union of India (2014) had already established that the severity of the misconduct should not automatically disqualify the individual from receiving a compassionate allowance. The misconduct must be evaluated on specific criteria such as moral turpitude or dishonesty.
The High Court noted that “when one applies the said decision to the facts of the present case, it is immediately apparent that the impugned judgment of the learned Tribunal cannot sustain.”
The Bench stated that the Tribunal allowed itself to be influenced by the misconduct which had led to the dismissal of the deceased from the service.
“These observations are directly contrary to the law laid down in Mahinder Dutt Sharma, which specifically holds that the misconduct which led to the dismissal or removal of the employee from service is entirely irrelevant while examining the employee’s right to compassionate allowance,” the Court remarked.
Consequently, the Court held, “For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned judgment dated 10 May 2022 of the learned Tribunal is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is held to be entitled to compassionate allowance in accordance with the rules and policy applicable in that regard.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition.
Cause Title: Usha Devi v. Union of India & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:7783-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Sriparna Chatterjee and Soumitra Chatterjee
Respondents: Senior Standing Counsel Manish Kumar
