Delhi High Court Grants Compassionate Allowance To Widow Of Dismissed Employee
A Division Bench Delhi High Court consisting of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Dr. Sudhir Kumar Jain ruled in favour of Usha Devi, directing the Union of India to grant her compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. This decision overturned the rejection of her plea by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which had previously denied...
A Division Bench Delhi High Court consisting of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Dr. Sudhir Kumar Jain ruled in favour of Usha Devi, directing the Union of India to grant her compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. This decision overturned the rejection of her plea by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which had previously denied her request following the dismissal of her husband from government service.
Background
Usha Devi's late husband had been employed as a Safai Karamchari in the Ministry of Defence subordinate office since 1976. His services were regularized in 1980. According to Usha Devi, her husband had long suffered from psychological issues. This had led him to very frequently leave home for days without informing the family. In 1997, he left home for work and never returned. Usha Devi later learned in 1999 that her husband had died in Pune the previous year. Consequently, she submitted his death certificate to his office, requesting for a compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules.
It was only later, after filing an application under the Right to Information Act, that she discovered that her husband had been dismissed from service due to habitual unauthorized absenteeism. This was following a complete disciplinary inquiry conducted before his death. However, her request for compassionate allowance had been unequivocally denied in 2016, citing his dismissal. After filing another representation in 2019 (which was also rejected) she approached CAT, which upheld such rejection in May 2022. Dissatisfied, she brought the present writ petition before the Delhi High Court.
Arguments
Ms. Sriparna Chatterjee, representing Usha Devi, argued that dismissal from service should not, in itself, prevent the grant of compassionate allowance. She relied on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Mahinder Dutt Sharma v. Union of India (2014), which held that the nature of the misconduct must be considered before denying such allowances. Since Pappu's dismissal stemmed from absenteeism and not from any dishonest or morally corrupt act, Usha Devi's financial hardship deserved consideration under Rule 41 of the CCS Rules.
Mr. Manish Kumar, Senior Panel Counsel for the Union of India, countered that Pappu's dismissal led to the forfeiture of his pensionary entitlements, and thus, his widow could not claim any compassionate allowance. He maintained that the denial of her claim was justified, given Pappu's repeated unauthorized absences from work, which had resulted in his dismissal.
Judgement
The main issue before the court was whether Usha Devi, the widow of a fired employee, qualified for compassionate allowance under CCS (Pension) Rules Rule 41. The Court drew extensively on the ruling in Mahinder Dutt Sharma v. Union of India (2014) from the Supreme Court in its analysis. It stated that unless a government employee's termination was due to moral decay, dishonesty, or other grave misconduct, they and their dependents remain eligible to receive compassionate allowance even after being dismissed from service.
The judges noted that Pappu's dismissal resulted solely from his unauthorized absences, a legitimate ground for termination but not a sufficient one to deny his widow's claim for compassionate allowance. The Court emphasized that absenteeism, while justifying dismissal, does not bar the grant of compassionate allowance, particularly where the employee's family is facing severe financial distress. The Court criticised the CAT's reasoning, stating that it had not applied the Mahinder Dutt Sharma principles and had instead been unduly influenced by Pappu's absenteeism. The CAT had neglected to acknowledge that, unless the misconduct involves dishonesty, moral turpitude, or other similar offenses, the seriousness of the misconduct leading to dismissal is irrelevant.
Furthermore, the Court took into account Usha Devi's dire financial condition. She had presented a Below Poverty Line (BPL) certificate, indicating that she and her family were living in extreme poverty. Additionally, her advanced age and health issues prevented her from working. These circumstances, the Court concluded, made her case one that warranted compassionate consideration under Rule 41. Thus, the Court set aside the CAT's order and directed the Union of India to grant Usha Devi compassionate allowance within four weeks. The Court noted that further delays would be unjust, given that nearly nine years had passed since her initial application. The petition was allowed without any order for costs.
Petitioner's Counsel: Ms. Sriparna Chatterjee and Mr. Soumitra Chatterjee
Respondent's Counsel: Mr. Manish Kumar, Senior Panel Counsel
Title: SMT USHA DEVI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1132
Judgment Date: October 8, 2024
Case Reference: W.P.(C) 5687/2024