V MUNUSWAMY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr.G.Justin, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.A.Kalaiselvan, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3.

(2.) THE petitioner was employed as Machinist under the 3rd respondent. While he was working as Machinist HS II, a charge memo was served on him on 31.10.1989 on the allegation that he was found with some materials belonging to the department hidden under his clothes. THEre was a departmental proceeding and on the basis of the findings, the petitioner was dismissed from service, by an order dated 14.07.1990. Even though such order was challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.897 of 1993, by an order dated 25.04.1994, such order was confirmed and the order of dismissal therefore became final. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application on 24.04.2000 purporting to invoke Rule 41 of C.C.S(Pension) Rules for grant of compassionate allowance not exceeding 2/3rd of the pension or gratuity. Since such representation remained in cold storage, the petitioner filed O.A.No.560 of 2006 for a direction to consider his representation and the Tribunal directed the authorities to consider the representation of the petitioner for the grant of compassionate allowance. THEreafter, by an order dated 27.03.2007, the appropriate authorities considered the matter and communicated the decision to the effect that it was not possible to extend the benefit of compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of CCS (Pension) Rules. Such order of the departmental authorities was challenged by the petitioner by filing O.A.No.482 of 2007. THE Tribunal, after referring to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the contention of the petitioner and that of the Department, held that there was no scope to grant compassionate allowance, by invoking Rule 41 of CCS (Pension) Rules. THE observation of the Tribunal reads as follows:

(3.) THE aforesaid Rule reads as follows: