Delhi High Court grants compassionate allowance to widow of dismissed employee

Background

Usha Devi’s late husband was employed as Safai Karamchari in the subordinate office of the Ministry of Defense since 1976. His services were regularized in 1980. According to Usha Devi, her husband had been suffering from psychological problems for a long time. This had led him to frequently leave his home for days without informing his family. In 1997, he left home to work and never returned. Usha Devi later learned in 1999 that her husband had died in Pune the previous year. Therefore, she submitted her death certificate to his office, seeking compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules.

It was only later, after filing a request under the Right to Information Act, that she discovered that her husband had been dismissed due to habitual and unauthorized absenteeism. This followed a full disciplinary investigation carried out before his death. However, his application for compassionate allowance was unequivocally refused in 2016, citing his dismissal. After filing another claim in 2019 (which was also rejected), she contacted the CAT, which confirmed this rejection in May 2022. Dissatisfied, she filed the present petition in the Delhi High Court.

Arguments

Ms Sriparna Chatterjee, appearing for Usha Devi, submitted that dismissal should not, in itself, prevent the grant of compassionate allowance. She relied on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in the case Mahinder Dutt Sharma v. Union of India (2014), according to which the nature of the fault must be taken into account before refusing such allowances. Since Pappu’s dismissal was a result of absenteeism and not a dishonest or morally corrupt act, Usha Devi’s financial difficulties merited consideration under Rule 41 of the CCS Rules.

Mr Manish Kumar, senior counsel for the Union of India, countered that Pappu’s dismissal resulted in loss of his pension rights and hence his widow was not entitled to any compassionate allowance. He argued that the denial of his request was justified, given Pappu’s repeated and unauthorized absences from work, which resulted in his dismissal.

Judgement

The main issue before the court was whether Usha Devi, the widow of a dismissed employee, was eligible for compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules. The Court drew heavily on the decision in Mahinder Dutt Sharma v. Union of India (2014). of the Supreme Court in its analysis. It said that unless a government employee’s dismissal is due to moral decadence, dishonesty or other serious misconduct, he and his dependents remain eligible to receive compassionate care allowance even after being dismissed from service.

The judges noted that Pappu’s dismissal resulted solely from his unauthorized absences, a legitimate reason for dismissal but not sufficient to reject his widow’s compassionate care allowance application. The Court emphasized that absenteeism, while justifying dismissal, does not preclude the granting of a compassionate allowance, particularly when the employee’s family is faced with serious financial difficulties. The Court criticized the CAT’s reasoning, saying it had failed to apply the principles of Mahinder Dutt Sharma and was instead unduly influenced by Pappu’s absenteeism. The CAT had neglected to recognize that, unless the misconduct involved dishonesty, moral turpitude or other similar offences, the seriousness of the misconduct leading to the dismissal is irrelevant.

Furthermore, the Court took into account the dire financial situation of Usha Devi. She had presented a Below Poverty Line (BPL) certificate, indicating that she and her family were living in extreme poverty. In addition, his advanced age and health problems prevented him from working. These circumstances, the Court concluded, made his case one which merited consideration on compassionate grounds under Rule 41. Thus, the Court set aside the order of the CAT and directed the Union of India to grant Usha Devi compassionate allowance within four weeks. The Court noted that additional delays would be unfair, given that nearly nine years had passed since its initial request. The application was granted without an order for costs.

Petitioner’s advice: Ms. Sriparna Chatterjee and Mr. Soumitra Chatterjee

Defendant’s lawyer: Mr. Manish Kumar, Senior Counsel to the Committee

Judgment date: October 8, 2024

Case reference: WP(C) 5687/2024

Click here to read/download the order