Anil Kumar vs Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi And Ors

The applicant has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-

"(i) Direct the respondents to consider his request for compassionate allowance benefits and allow 2/3 of his compensation pension & 2/3 of gratuity that may have been due to him at the time of conviction/dismissal, as per provisions of Rule 41 of Rules of 1972.

(ii) Direct the respondents to grant compassionate allowance with all consequential benefits along with interest @ 18% per annum.

(iii) Cost of the application be provided for."

Brief facts of the case, which are not in dispute, are that the applicant was appointed as Sub Inspector in Delhi Police on 16.04.1986 and was later promoted to the rank of Inspector out of turn in 1994. He had an unblemished record during his 24 years of service in Delhi Police and got number of commendation certificates from Dy. Commissioner of Police, Addl. Commissioner of Police and Commissioner of Police, Delhi. The applicant was also awarded Asadharan Karya Purskar in 1992 for apprehending terrorists.

The applicant was dismissed from service on 11.05.2010 by Addl. Commissioner of Police, Crime, New Delhi since he was involved in FIR No. 453/97 dated 01.04.1997 along with nine other officers/officials of Delhi Police in Connaught Place shoot out case (Annexure A-2).

The applicant states that he sent his request for compassionate pension and gratuity under Rule-41 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 through Superintendent Central Jail Tihar on the ground of his financial circumstances and also on the ground that similar benefit has been granted to a co accused, Ex-ACP Satyavir Singh Rathi. The competent authority rejected his request by an order dated 01.11.2017 stating that his co accused Ex. ACP Satyavir Singh Rathi has been granted compassionate pension and gratuity on the orders of Hon'ble Lt. Governor and it has not been sanctioned compassionate pension and gratuity by the respondents.

The applicant further avers that the Tribunal in OA-3565/2017 vide judgment dated 09.01.2018 directed the respondents to consider and grant compassionate allowance to the applicant therein Sh. Sunil Kumar, (who is a co-accused with the applicant) under Rule 41 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The applicant is a similarly situated person as Ex. ACP Satyavir Singh Rathi, and Sunil Kumar, who have received similar benefits from the Tribunal in TA-7/2015 and OA-3565/2017, respectively. Both are co-accused along with the applicant (and others) in the same shootout case, hence the applicant's claim for compassionate allowance also deserves similar consideration.

In the counter, the respondents state that 50% compensation pension and 50% gratuity, sanctioned to the co-accused Ex. ACP Satyavir Singh Rathi was on account of the orders of the Hon'ble Lt. Governor and not by the respondents. They admit that the case of the co accused Sunil Kumar is under process for grant of compassionate allowance in compliance of directions of the Tribunal as well as the competent authority.

During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the applicant Sh. B.S. Jarial reiterated the issues already raised in the O.A. He argued that since the convicted Ex. ACP Satyavir Singh Rathi has been granted compassionate allowance on 07.04.2016, the respondents should have considered the applicant's case for grant of similar benefits, since both are similarly placed. Sh. B.S. Jarial informed the Bench that vide order dated 24.01.2018 in OA Nos. 275/2018, 288/2018, 311/2018 and 312/2018 in respect of Sumer Singh, Mahavir Singh, Tej Pal and Kothari Ram, respectively, all being co accused of the applicant, the Tribunal disposed of the OAs at the admission stage directing the respondents that if it is found that if the applicants are similarly situated, then similar benefit should be granted to similarly situated persons like the applicant. He also produced before me a copy of Order dated 18.07.2018 of the respondents wherein the respondents, in compliance of the CAT order dated 24.01.2018 have granted the benefit of compensation pension under Rule 41 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 to all the applicants namely Ex. Const. Sumer Singh, Ex. HC Mohan Singh, Ex.HC Tej Pal and Ex.Const. Kothari Ram, respectively.

7.1 The learned counsel for the respondents Mrs. Harvinder Oberoi argued that the compassionate allowance has been granted to the other co accused Satyavir Singh Rathi and Sunil Kumar based on the directions of the Hon'ble Lt. Governor and the Tribunal respectively. There are no such directions in the case of the applicant from any Court of Law and his case has been rejected by the respondents taking into account the seriousness of the allegations against him.

I have considered the facts of the case and rival submissions made by both sides. It is not disputed that the applicant is one of the 10 charge sheeted accused officials against whom investigation was conducted in the case of a shootout at Connaught Place, Delhi. The applicant, along with others were initially placed under suspension. The Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Patialia House Courts, New Delhi held all the above said accused police officers guilty vide judgment dated 16.10.2007 and convicted them vide his order dated 24.10.2007. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi modified the said order vide order dated 18.09.2009. The applicant and the others accused were dismissed from service w.e.f. the dates of orders passed by the competent authority in the year 2010-2011.

The convicted ACP Satyavir Singh Rathi's representation for grant of compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 was rejected. His Writ Petition filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was transferred to the Tribunal and registered as TA-7/2015 in which the Tribunal vide order dated 24.04.2015 directed the respondents to consider and decide his representation. On such consideration, the respondents vide their order dated 07.04.2016 sanctioned 50% compensation pension and 50% of gratuity in favour of Ex.ACP Satyavir Singh Rathi from the date of dismissal from service. Another co accused Sunil Kumar also preferred OA-3565/2017 and was granted similar relief by Tribunal's order dated 09.01.2018. For other co-accused (para-7) has also received compassionate allowance from the respondents in pursuance of Tribunal's judgment dated 24.01.2018.

In view of the aforementioned facts and the fact that the applicant had an unblemished service record during his service with Delhi Police, I am convinced that the applicant's claim for compassionate allowance deserves similar consideration. All other convicted along with the applicant, have been extended the benefit of compassionate allowance as per Rule-41 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The applicant deserves similar treatment, being identically placed.

The O.A. is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant compassionate allowance benefits and allow 2/3 of his compensation pension & 2/3 of gratuity that may have been due to him at the time of conviction/dismissal to the applicant under Rule- 41 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (without interest) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs.