Delhi High Court: Dismissed CRPF Constable Entitled to Compassionate Allowance Under Rule 41; Unauthorised Absence Not Moral Turpitude

Headnote:

Compassionate allowance — Rule 41 of CCS (Pension) Rules — Dismissal from CRPF service for unauthorised absence — Petitioner sought compassionate allowance — Authority rejected citing lack of eligibility — High Court held that absence of corruption, moral turpitude, or dishonesty made petitioner’s case deserving of special consideration — Rejection order quashed — Directed payment within six weeks with 9% interest on delay.

Background:

Ajit Singh, serving as Constable (GD) in the CRPF, was dismissed from service on 2 February 2008 for unauthorised absence of ten days. His earlier challenges before the High Court and Supreme Court failed. Subsequently, he sought compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, which allows limited pensionary relief to dismissed employees in deserving cases. Despite a previous High Court direction to reconsider his claim in light of Mahinder Dutt Sharma, the competent authority again rejected his representation on 18 September 2021, prompting this writ petition.

Legal Provision Concerned:

Rule 41, Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972:

A dismissed or removed government servant may, in cases deserving special consideration, be granted compassionate allowance up to two-thirds of the pension or gratuity admissible on superannuation.

Court’s Opinion / Analysis:

The Court held that Rule 41 represents a discretionary, equitable relief grounded in compassion, not punishment. It distinguished minor misconduct like temporary absence from grave moral or corrupt acts that may disqualify an employee. The Bench found the rejection order unsustainable, noting that the authority failed to apply the humanitarian intent of the rule.

Drawing parallels with Usha Devi v. UOI and Raj Kumari v. GNCTD, the Court reaffirmed that absence without leave, though a disciplinary lapse, cannot automatically negate consideration under Rule 41. It concluded that Ajit Singh’s case warranted special consideration, given the absence of moral blameworthiness and the prolonged delay in relief.

Case Title: Ex CT/GD Ajit Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

Court: High Court of Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Digpaul

Date of Decision: 6 October 2025

Citation: W.P.(C) 12101/2021