Punjab and Haryana High Court: A petition was filed before a Division Bench of Rajiv Sharma and Kuldip Singh, JJ. seeking quashing of impugned order where compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 was rejected.
Facts of the case were that petitioner was removed from the post of Principal in Kendriya Vidyalaya and was alleged for being absent for an unjustified period. He had gone abroad without attaining no objection certificate from the authority. Departmental proceedings were held and charge sheet was filed against him.
Petitioner submitted that he was 69 years old and was suffering from various ailments. He contended that he was dismissed on clumsy grounds and his meritorious service was ignored and thus he was entitled to a compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the Rules. This Rule was applicable if the case deserved special consideration, the authority can sanction compassionate allowance.
High Court was of the view that on account of dismissal from service, his past service was forfeited and he was not granted pensionary benefits. The authorities had considered his misconduct a suggestion of his disloyalty to his duty and organization. Court observed that compassionate allowance under Rule 41 cannot be claimed as a matter of right and is under the discretion of authorities. The authorities after considering the same decided not to grant compassionate allowance to him. Therefore, there was no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. Therefore, this petition was dismissed. [S.C. Sharma v. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 282, decided on 19-03-2019]
