W.P.C 3608/2017 dismissed. Court held that no vested right exists to compassionate allowance. Rejected petitioner's claim as deceased husband displayed incorrigible conduct and no exceptional circumstances existed despite principal.
Petitioner dismissed; claim for compassionate allowance rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~22
KELO DEVI ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.U.Srivastava, Advocate
versus
GOVT OF NCT DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Gautam Narayan, ASC with Mr.S.Banerji and Mr.Negi, ACP (PCR)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
same before the Tribunal. In its order dated 07.04.2015, the respondents had observed that the petitioner’s late husband had absented himself on 25 different occasions in a short span of 15 years of service and that apart he had also subjected to major penalty for his another misdemeanour. Keeping in view the overall facts of the case, the respondents stated that the case does not fall in the category of ‘most exceptional circumstances’ deserving grant of compassionate allowance.
irrespective of the circumstances in which the ex-employee may have been removed from service. If the said course of action was to be adopted, it would lead to sending a very wrong signal to the serving employees that they may eventually secure compassionate allowance which could be as high as 2/3rd of the pension despite being incorrigible in their conduct while in service and despite their being removed from service after enquiry. In the present case, the petitioner’s late husband displayed incorrigible conduct of remaining absent on 25 different occasions in a short span of 15 years. He was subjected to another major penalty for his another misdemeanour
VIPIN SANGHI, J
DEEPA SHARMA, J
MAY 02, 2017 rb
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Respondents were justified in denying compassionate allowance to the widow of a deceased government employee removed for incorrigible conduct.
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal erred in upholding the decision to deny compassionate allowance.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mahinder Dutt Sharma vs. Union of India & Ors.Referred¶10
Mahinder Dutt Sharma vs. Union of India & Ors. 2014 (3) SLJ 278
ASI Shadi Ram vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.Referred¶10
ASI Shadi Ram vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. in W.P (C) 5544/2007
Kelo Devi
Govt of NCT Delhi
Vipin Sanghi
Deepa Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
