Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court set aside the rejection of compassionate allowance to a dismissed CRPF constable and directed the Union of India to disburse compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, within six weeks. The Court held that “unauthorised absence for ten days cannot be equated with acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption that disentitle one from compassionate consideration.” The judgment emphasized that compassionate allowance is not determined by the severity of misconduct but by whether the case merits “special consideration.”
Facts
The petitioner, formerly a constable in the CRPF, was removed from service in February 2008 for unauthorised absence from duty for ten days between 10 and 19 September 2007. His appeal against dismissal was dismissed by the Delhi High Court and subsequently by the Supreme Court. In 2021, he applied for compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, which was rejected on the ground that his case did not satisfy the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in Mahinder Dutt Sharma v. Union of India (2014) 11 SCC 684. The Commandant observed that he was a “habitual offender and liquor drinker” who had not taken previous warnings seriously.
The petitioner challenged the rejection through a writ petition, contending that his case was fully covered by Mahinder Dutt Sharma and that his conduct did not fall within any of the categories that preclude compassionate consideration.
Issues
- Whether unauthorised absence from duty can disentitle a dismissed employee from compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
- Whether the Commandant’s decision rejecting the allowance was consistent with the principles laid down in Mahinder Dutt Sharma v. Union of India.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the misconduct in question—ten days of unauthorised absence—did not fall under any of the five categories of misconduct enumerated by the Supreme Court in Mahinder Dutt Sharma, such as acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, corruption, or deliberate harm to others. It was contended that the denial of compassionate allowance ignored the “window for hope” created by Rule 41, which allows special consideration even in cases of dismissal. The petitioner relied on Usha Devi v. Union of India (2024 SCC OnLine Del 7116), where the Court held that absence from duty without dishonesty or corruption cannot be a ground to deny compassionate allowance.
Respondent’s Arguments
The Union of India argued that compassionate allowance is a discretionary benefit and not a matter of right. It submitted that Rule 41 employs the term “may,” implying that the competent authority can grant such allowance only if “special circumstances” exist. The respondents asserted that the petitioner’s conduct—being a deserter and a habitual offender—did not merit any special consideration. It was also contended that Mahinder Dutt Sharma was distinguishable because that case involved long service and mitigating circumstances.
Analysis of the Law
The Court began by reiterating that Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules permits payment of compassionate allowance even to those dismissed or removed from service, demonstrating that the legislature intended leniency in appropriate cases. Citing paragraph 13 of Mahinder Dutt Sharma, the Court emphasized that the severity of the misconduct cannot, by itself, be the basis for rejecting a claim for compassionate allowance. The Court noted that even though dismissal is the severest punishment, the Rule still contemplates compassion.
The Court then referred to paragraph 14 of Mahinder Dutt Sharma, where the Supreme Court enumerated five categories of misconduct—acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, corruption, deliberate harm to third parties, and depravity—that would ordinarily disqualify a person from compassionate allowance. The Court observed that the petitioner’s conduct did not fall within any of these categories.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied heavily on three precedents:
- Mahinder Dutt Sharma v. Union of India (2014) 11 SCC 684
The Supreme Court held that compassionate allowance should not be denied merely because of serious misconduct unless the act involves moral turpitude or corruption. It clarified that dismissal already punishes the delinquent, and the question of allowance must be considered independently. - GNCTD v. Raj Kumari (2019 SCC OnLine Del 7124)
The Delhi High Court held that the exercise of discretion under Rule 41 must be fair, reasonable, and based on relevant considerations. It observed that if the employee’s conduct does not involve dishonesty, corruption, or moral depravity, compassionate allowance should be favourably considered. - Usha Devi v. Union of India (2024 SCC OnLine Del 7116)
Following Mahinder Dutt Sharma and Raj Kumari, the Court held that mere unauthorised absence does not justify denial of compassionate allowance, since such misconduct lacks moral turpitude or corruption.
The Delhi High Court in the present case affirmed and applied the principles from these decisions, holding that once an employee has already been punished through dismissal, the same conduct cannot again be used to deny post-service compassion.
Court’s Reasoning
The Bench, speaking through Justice C. Hari Shankar, reasoned that the petitioner’s absence for ten days could not be equated with moral turpitude or dishonesty. The Court observed that the disciplinary authority’s finding that the petitioner was a “habitual drunkard” and “undisciplined” did not bring his case within any of the categories listed in Mahinder Dutt Sharma. The Court stated:
“It cannot be said that the misconduct committed by the petitioner, by remaining unauthorisedly absent from duty for ten days, is an act of moral turpitude, or dishonesty towards the respondent, or for obtaining personal gains… These findings do not bring the case within the circumstances envisaged in paragraph 14 of Mahinder Dutt Sharma.”
The Court also highlighted that the petitioner had already suffered removal from service and had litigated for over seven years. In such circumstances, remanding the matter would cause unnecessary hardship. Exercising its equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court directly ordered the payment of compassionate allowance.
Conclusion
The Court quashed the Commandant’s order dated 18 September 2021 and directed the respondents to pay the petitioner compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules within six weeks. Failure to comply would attract interest at 9% per annum until payment. The Court concluded:
“Having already suffered removal from service, and having litigated thereafter for seven years, the petitioner deserves favourable consideration in light of the law declared by the Supreme Court in Mahinder Dutt Sharma.”
The writ petition was accordingly allowed, with no order as to costs.
Implications
This decision reinforces that compassionate allowance is a humanitarian measure designed to prevent destitution of dismissed employees and their families. The judgment broadens the interpretation of Rule 41 by clarifying that only acts involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption justify denial of such benefits. It also underscores that the government’s discretion under Rule 41 must be exercised fairly, based on relevant considerations, and consistent with judicial precedents. The ruling may serve as a crucial precedent for government servants dismissed for minor misconduct, particularly cases involving unauthorised absence without dishonest intent.
FAQs
1. What is compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules?
Compassionate allowance is a discretionary pensionary benefit granted to a government servant dismissed or removed from service in “deserving cases” of special consideration, to prevent hardship to the individual or their dependents.
2. Can a government employee dismissed for unauthorised absence claim compassionate allowance?
Yes. As held by the Delhi High Court, unauthorised absence—unless accompanied by dishonesty, corruption, or moral turpitude—does not disentitle an employee from receiving compassionate allowance.
3. What happens if the government fails to pay compassionate allowance within the stipulated time?
The Court directed that if the payment is not made within six weeks, the petitioner would be entitled to interest at 9% per annum until full payment.