SUBHAKANT AGNIHOTRI Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAYER made vide C.M.No.1471/2012 is that the respondents be directed to pay Compassionate Allowance as also gratuity to the petitioner with effect from September 22, 1997 when petitioner was dismissed from service and since the petitioner died on October 16, 2008, such amount with respect to the Compassionate Allowance which is payable to his wife, two unmarried daughters and the unmarried son be released in the name of the wife.

(2.) WITH respect to the claim in the writ petition in which the petitioner challenges his services being terminated, Sh.Rakesh Saini, Advocate, on instructions from the wife and the elder daughter and the son of the deceased petitioner who are present in Court, states that challenge to the services being terminated, i.e. penalty of dismissal levied upon the deceased petitioner is given up and limited relief prayed for is that a Compassionate Allowance be sanctioned in the name of the deceased from the date he was dismissed from service and said amount be paid to the wife of the deceased; the amount being till when the deceased died and thereafter such amount as would be payable to the family with reference to the Compassionate Allowance.

(3.) WHEN he was dismissed from service the petitioner had rendered about eighteen years service. When he was dismissed, apart from his widowed mother, the petitioner had a wife, two daughters and a son to support. He had no immovable assets, and a fact which has surprised us needs to be noted. The wife and the elder daughter as also the only son of the deceased who are present in Court inform us, a fact not denied by learned counsel for the respondent, that the family of the deceased continues to occupy the dilapidated one room tenement at the Railway Station Okhla which was allotted to the petitioner when he was in service; the tenement is without any water or electricity connection; the tenement is in a dilapidated condition and has not even been repaired or white washed for the last twenty years. But, therefrom one fact stands established. Late petitioner and his family have just about no means to even sustain a roof over their head. As per the wife of the petitioner she informs us that the deceased had just no assets.