EX. SUB PARAS RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner impugns an order dated 16.5.2006, issued by respondent Nos.2 & 3 rejecting his application for grant of compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of CCS (Pension) Rules (for short "the Rules").

(2.) The petitioner was charged under Section 46 of the Border Security Force Act (for short "BSF Act") for possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. After trial by the Border Security Force Court and on being found guilty of the charge he was sentenced to dismissal from service vide order dated 20.9.1993 under Section 46 of the BSF Act read with Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. His statutory appeal under Section 117(2) of the BSF Act was rejected on 20.2.1994. It is more than 20 years since the petitioner has been out of service. His petition for grant of compassionate allowance under the Rules was rejected as aforesaid. This petition has been preferred eight (8) years thereafter. The petitioner has sought to explain the delay by stating all along that his wife and he were being looked after by their son, who has now stopped looking after them. The petitioner contends that he and his wife are now about 69 years and 67 years old respectively, (67 years and 65 years at the time of filing of the writ petition), and that both are keeping infirm health; that their daughters are settled in their respective matrimonial homes; that he has no source of sustenance and after thirty (30) years of an otherwise unblemished service he was dismissed for the last incident. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in other similarly placed cases, this Court has allowed the grant of compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of CCS (Pension) Rules.

(3.) In support of his contention the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Shadi Ram (Ex. ASI) Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors., 2008 5 AD(Del) 3; Mahabir Prasad (Ex.L/Nk) Vs. UOI & Ors., 2010 8 AD(Del) 260.