Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 22.07.2025
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr.Shivam Tiwari, Mr. Umar Hashmi, Ms. Urmila Sharma, Ms. Venni Kakkar, Advs.
Through: Mr.R.K. Shukla, Adv.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) 10440/2025 & CM APPL. 43359/2025 (Stay)
2. The present petition has been filed challenging the Order dated 25.02.2025 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as, ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 1862/2024, titled Rashmi Sinha v. Union of India & Ors., allowing the O.A. filed by the respondent herein with the following directions: “7. In view of the same, the impugned order dated 31.01.2024 is liable to be quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to grant the benefit of compassionate allowance to the applicant if otherwise she is eligible in terms of the rule position by counting the past service under the rounding calculation criteria as observed in Clause 1.[1] of the Master Circular dated 14.10.2019 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. We restrict the payment of arrears for three years from the date of filing of the present O.A. in light of the decision rendered in light of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Tarsem Singh,
3. The brief background of the facts from which the present petition arises is that the husband of the respondent was working as an Accounts Assistant in the Indian Railways. On an allegation that he had remained absent without authorization, he was served with a chargesheet and pursuant to the report of the Inquiry Officer, the penalty of ‘removal from service’ was imposed on him vide Order dated 16.10.2003 passed by the Disciplinary Authority.
4. Unfortunately, the husband of the respondent passed away due to liver ailments on 19.04.2015.
5. The respondent applied for grant of Compassionate Appointment, which was rejected by the petitioner vide Communication dated 05.08.2015, stating that her husband had been removed from service and, therefore, she was not entitled to the same. Thereafter, the respondent made a representation for grant of compassionate allowance, which was again rejected vide Communication dated 16.11.2022, stating that the same could not be processed in the absence of the enquiry case file, which was not traceable any longer.
6. Aggrieved thereof, the respondent approached by the learned Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 1441/2023, which was disposed of by the learned Tribunal vide Order dated 25.05.2023, directing the petitioners herein to make efforts to trace the enquiry file and pass a reasoned and speaking order on the request of the respondent herein for grant of compassionate allowance.
7. The petitioner, vide Order dated 31.01.2024, rejected the request of the respondent for grant of the compassionate allowance, stating therein that as the total length of service of the husband of the respondent was 9 years 9 months and 26 days, the respondent was not qualified for the grant of compassionate allowance. It was stated that for the grant of the Compassionate Allowance, the minimum qualifying service is 10 years.
8. Aggrieved by the above, the respondent then filed the abovementioned O.A., which as noted hereinabove, was allowed by the learned Tribunal by way of the Impugned Order.
9. In the Impugned Order, the learned Tribunal has placed reliance on Clause 1.[1] of the Master Circular dated 14.10.2019 which reads as under: 1.[1] A qualifying service of 9 years and 9 months and above at the time of retirement shall be treated as ten years of service for the purpose of pension and death/retirement gratuity. (Emphasis supplied)
10. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the above clause is applicable only when the employee has retired from service. He submits that the same has no application if the employee has been removed from service.
11. While we prima facie find merit in the above contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, we need not dwell deeper into it.
12. The learned counsel for the respondent, placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. v. Shri Naresh Kumar, 2024:DHC:1446:DB, submits that for the grant of compassionate allowance, in terms of Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, there is no minimum qualifying service prescribed. He submits that, therefore, the insistence of the petitioners on a minimum qualifying service of 10 years was incorrect.
13. In Naresh Kumar (supra), this Court, while dealing with a similar submission that the minimum qualifying service must be completed for the consideration of a claim for compassionate allowance, had observed as under:
as a matter of right. It is only when the employer finds that the respondent is suffering from grave financial hardships that the employer may despite his/her dismissal sanction compassionate allowance.”
14. A reading of the above would show that while for the grant of regular pension, a minimum qualifying service is prescribed, as such pension becomes payable a matter of right, on the other hand, compassionate allowance being only a discretion vested in the employer, there is no prescription of a minimum qualifying service.
15. The insistence of the petitioners that the husband of the respondent had not completed the minimum qualifying service for grant of compassionate allowance, therefore, cannot be sustained.
16. As far as the Indian Railways is concerned, Rule 65 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, which provides for compassionate allowance, is pari materia to Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, referred to hereinabove. Therefore, the judgment of this Court in Naresh Kumar (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case.
17. Now, coming to the eventual relief granted by the learned Tribunal.
18. We find that the learned Tribunal has directed the petitioners to grant the benefit of the compassionate allowance to the respondent if she is otherwise eligible for the same in terms of the rule position. We find that as compassionate allowance is a matter of discretion of the employer, who has to look into the pecuniary condition of the applicant and other surrounding factors, the direction to grant such benefit to the respondent should not have usurped by the learned Tribunal.
19. We, therefore, with the consent of the learned counsel for the respondent, modify the direction to the following effect: a. The petitioners shall consider the request of the respondent for grant of compassionate allowance in accordance with the applicable Rules, however, without insisting on the aspect of the husband of the respondent having completed the minimum qualifying service, within a period of four weeks from today; b. In such consideration, the petitioners shall take into account the pecuniary condition of the respondent and her family, amongst other relevant factors; c. An order on the same be passed within a period of four weeks from today; d. In case the respondent is held entitled to the grant of compassionate allowance, the same be released to her from a period of three years before the filing of the O.A. before the learned Tribunal and for the future.
20. The petition, along with the pending application, is disposed of in the above terms.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J RENU BHATNAGAR, J JULY 22, 2025 Pallavi/MY/SJ