Case Note & Summary
The Union of India and the Senior Superintendent of Post Office filed a writ petition challenging an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Camp at Nagpur, dated 10.03.2017, which granted compassionate allowance to the respondent, Shukram Muka Deshkar, a former Postal Assistant. The respondent had been suspended on 27.01.1987 for alleged serious misconduct, and after a departmental enquiry, was removed from service w.e.f. 26.12.1992 by an order dated 26.06.1992. The removal order did not contain any provision for compassionate allowance under Rule 41(1) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The respondent filed Original Application No. 211/00247/2016 before the Tribunal, which allowed the application and directed payment of compassionate allowance with arrears restricted to three years preceding the order. The petitioners argued that the grant of compassionate allowance is entirely within the discretion of the disciplinary authority, and the Tribunal could not substitute its own discretion. The High Court agreed that the Tribunal could not exercise the discretion itself but noted that the disciplinary authority had not considered the matter at all. The Court held that the Tribunal could only direct the authority to consider the question of compassionate allowance afresh. Accordingly, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the matter to the disciplinary authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law, directing that the authority pass a reasoned order within three months. The petition was partly allowed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Compassionate Allowance - Rule 41(1) of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 - Discretion of Disciplinary Authority - The Tribunal directed grant of compassionate allowance to a removed employee where the disciplinary authority's order of removal did not mention any consideration of compassionate allowance. The High Court held that the Tribunal could not substitute its own discretion but could direct the authority to consider the matter afresh, as the authority had failed to exercise its discretion. The Court set aside the Tribunal's order granting allowance and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the disciplinary authority. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal could direct grant of compassionate allowance under Rule 41(1) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 when the disciplinary authority had not exercised its discretion in that regard
Final Decision
The High Court partly allowed the petition, set aside the Tribunal's order granting compassionate allowance, and remanded the matter to the disciplinary authority for fresh consideration of the question of compassionate allowance in accordance with law, directing that a reasoned order be passed within three months.
Law Points
- Compassionate allowance under Rule 41(1) of CCS (Pension) Rules
- 1972 is not automatic but must be considered by disciplinary authority
- Tribunal can direct consideration if authority fails to exercise discretion
- discretion must be exercised reasonably and not arbitrarily
