In a landmark ruling, the Delhi High Court reaffirmed that dismissal from service does not automatically disqualify an individual from receiving compassionate allowance. The judgment was pronounced by a division bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Dr. Sudhir Kumar Jain in W.P.(C) 5687/2024 titled Smt. Usha Devi vs. Union of India & Anr.. The case revolved around the petitioner Usha Devi’s claim for compassionate allowance following the dismissal of her late husband, Pappu, from his position as a Safai Karamchari in the Ministry of Defence.
Background of the Case
Pappu, who served as a Safai Karamchari in the Ministry of Defence, was dismissed from service in 1997 for habitual absenteeism. According to Usha Devi, her husband had been suffering from psychological issues and would often leave the house for extended periods without informing his family. In 1998, Usha Devi learned through a third party that Pappu had died in Pune. Despite her efforts to claim a compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, her request was denied by the Ministry of Defence, citing her husband’s dismissal from service.
Usha Devi’s plight, compounded by her dire financial situation, led her to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which dismissed her plea in May 2022. Left with no other option, she filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue before the court was whether Usha Devi, as the widow of a dismissed government servant, could be entitled to compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The respondents argued that since Pappu was dismissed from service due to habitual absenteeism, he had forfeited his pensionary benefits, and thus, his widow could not claim any compassionate allowance.
The petitioner, on the other hand, contended that her husband’s absenteeism was a result of his psychological condition and that, despite the dismissal, the family should not be deprived of any compassionate relief, given their extreme financial distress.
Court’s Observations and Decision
The Delhi High Court, in its detailed judgment, emphasized that the dismissal of an employee does not automatically disqualify their family from receiving compassionate allowance. Justice C. Hari Shankar, writing for the bench, cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Mahinder Dutt Sharma v. Union of India, which held that the nature of the misconduct leading to dismissal is irrelevant for determining eligibility for compassionate allowance unless the misconduct involves moral turpitude, dishonesty, or other serious transgressions.
The Court highlighted:
“Where the misconduct which led to the dismissal or removal of the employee does not fall within any of the five categories of serious misconduct as categorized in Mahinder Dutt Sharma, the employee’s family can still be entitled to compassionate allowance.”
Applying this principle to the present case, the Court noted that Pappu’s misconduct—habitual absenteeism—did not fall into any of the serious categories such as dishonesty, fraud, or moral turpitude. The bench also observed that Usha Devi’s claim was bolstered by her extreme financial hardship. She had provided evidence of her poverty, health issues, and the fact that she was living below the poverty line (BPL). The Court also considered the fact that the respondents did not dispute these financial hardships.
Important Observations by the Court
In delivering the judgment, the Court made an important observation:
“The purpose of compassionate allowance is to provide relief to the family of a dismissed employee in cases of extreme financial hardship. The dismissal itself should not result in further punishment for the family, especially when the misconduct is not of a nature that involves dishonesty or moral depravity.”
The Court further observed that the Ministry’s decision to deny Usha Devi’s claim for compassionate allowance was “misdirected,” as the Ministry had focused solely on Pappu’s dismissal rather than the family’s current circumstances.
Final Decision
The Delhi High Court quashed the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal that had denied Usha Devi’s claim. The Court directed the Ministry of Defence to grant compassionate allowance to Usha Devi within four weeks from the date of the judgment. The Court refrained from remanding the matter back to the respondents, citing the significant delay in Usha Devi’s claim, which had already been pending for over nine years.
Parties and Representation
– Petitioner: Smt. Usha Devi
– Respondents: Union of India & Anr.
– Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Dr. Sudhir Kumar Jain
– Counsel for Petitioner: Ms. Sriparna Chatterjee and Mr. Soumitra Chatterjee
– Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Manish Kumar, Senior Panel Counsel
