Competent authority must reconsider the compassionate allowance claim, including limitation, by a reasoned order.

The applicant, a former Postal Assistant, was dismissed from service on 22 January 2008 following his conviction in a criminal case.

His departmental appeal was rejected, and his revision petition was rejected as time-barred.

In 2024, he sought compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.

Respondent No. 4 rejected his request on 29 April 2024, citing the prescribed time limit.

The applicant later made a further representation to respondent No. 3 and challenged the rejection before the Tribunal.

The respondents relied on Rule 41(4) and (5) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, and maintained that the claim was out of time.

Whether the applicant’s claim for compassionate allowance was properly rejected on the ground that it was not made within the prescribed time limit

Whether the competent authority should reconsider the applicant’s representations and decide the claim by a reasoned and speaking order

The applicant’s claim arose under Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

The respondents relied on Rule 41(4) and (5) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, concerning claims relating to pre-commencement dismissal or removal where compassionate allowance had not previously been considered or decided.

The Tribunal directed the competent authority to consider the claim under the applicable rules, including the respondents’ limitation objection, but did not determine the interpretation or application of those provisions.

No judicial precedent was cited.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s request had been rejected on limitation grounds, but the respondents’ cited communication dated 28 June 2024 concerned an RTI appeal and was not a decision on the merits of the compassionate-allowance claim.

Because the record did not establish a substantive determination of the claim, the Tribunal directed the competent authority to reconsider both representations under the applicable rules.

It expressly left open the applicant’s entitlement and the competing arguments concerning limitation and the applicability of the 2021 Rules.

It disposed of the Original Application with a direction to the competent authority to reconsider the representations dated 11 March 2024 and 28 August 2024, examine the relevant provisions of the 1972 and 2021 Rules—including the limitation objection—and issue and communicate a reasoned and speaking order within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order.

No order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of.