A dismissed employee challenged rejection of compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the CCS Pension Rules, contending that dismissal alone could not answer the claim.
Judge / Bench — Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar, Judge
He relied on Mahinder Dutt Sharma and the distinct considerations identified there. The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court issued notice and, pending the petition, directed reconsideration in light of that Supreme Court ruling if applicable to the factual situation. It did not decide eligibility, invalidate the disciplinary dismissal or award any pensionary amount. The practical value is the separation of the misconduct-based loss of ordinary pension from the independently evaluated request for compassionate allowance. Counsel must still establish the governing rule, the judgment’s applicability and the facts warranting the discretionary concession.
Case — S. Mohinder Singh, Defence Person v. Union of India and others · WP(C) No. 3268/2026 · 2026-10-13 · Jammu wing
Advocates appearing — Petitioner — Ms. Anam Anjum, Advocate, vice Mr. Mussaffar Ali Shah, Advocate. Respondents — Mr. Sumant Sudan, Advocate, vice Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI.