New Delhi: The Central Administrative Tribunal Monday directed the police department to grant compassionate allowance benefits, pension and gratuity to Police Inspector Anil Kumar who was dismissed from service for his involvement in a shoot-out at Connaught Place in New Delhi.
"The applicant had an unblemished service record during his service with Delhi Police, I am convinced that the applicant's claim for compassionate allowance deserves consideration," said administrative member Praveen Mahajan.
The tribunal took note that all other persons convicted along with Kumar have been extended the benefit of compassionate allowance as per Rule-41 of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, and therefore he too deserves the same.
"The respondents are directed to grant compassionate allowance benefits (to Kumar) and allow (grant of) two-third of his compensation pension and two-third of gratuity that may have been due to him at the time of dismissal, within a period of three months," said the tribunal.
Kumar was appointed sub-inspector in Delhi Police on April 16, 1986. He was later promoted to the rank of inspector in 1994. He has got a number of commendation certificates in his 24 years of service, including Asadharan Karya Puraskar in 1992 for apprehending terrorists.
Kumar was dismissed from service on May 11, 2010 along with nine other officials of Delhi Police for a shootout in Connaught Place.
He had sent a request for compassionate pension and gratuity through Superintendent Central Jail Tihar on the ground of his financial circumstances and that similar benefit had been granted to co-accused ex-ACP Satyavir Singh Rathi.
However, Kumar's request was rejected by the competent authority and he was informed that Rathi was granted compassionate pension and gratuity on the orders of the Lt. Governor.
The tribunal took note of the fact that it had in January this year directed the police department to grant compassionate allowance to Sunil Kumar, who is another accused in the Connaught Place shooting case.
The counsel for the police department argued that there were no directions from any court of law regarding grant of allowance to Kumar and that his case had been rejected by the department taking into account the seriousness of the allegations against him.