Court Mandates Compassionate Allowance for Mumbai Port Trust Employee.


09 May 2025 Civil Writ Petition >> Civil & Consumer Law  

This case of Mohammad Shafique Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh v/s The Chairman, Mumbai Port Trust CP & IRM-s Office, Mumbai & Another concerns a petition filed by an individual (the Petitioner) challenging the rejection of his application for compassionate pension and retirement benefits under the Mumbai Port Trust Pension Regulation Rules, 2001. The Petitioner, an employee of the Mumbai Port Trust since 1986, was removed from service in 2005 due to unauthorized absenteeism for 646 days.

After unsuccessfully challenging his removal through departmental appeals and an Industrial Dispute, the Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 4268 of 2018. While the High Court upheld the removal from service, it directed the Respondents (Mumbai Port Trust) to consider the Petitioner's case for a compassionate allowance under Rule 35(1) of the Mumbai Port Trust Pension Regulations, 2001.


 

 

Upon the Petitioner's application, the Respondents rejected his request, citing that the 2001 Regulations had not received government sanction and thus, Rule 35(1) was not applicable. They instead relied on Regulation 10(a) of the MBPT Pension Regulations, 1965, which states that compassionate allowance may be granted to employees removed for misconduct if they are "deserving of special consideration." The Respondents further argued that there was no "exemplary contribution" from the Petitioner to warrant such consideration.

The Court, after reviewing the arguments and relevant legal precedents, particularly the Supreme Court's decision in Mahinder Dutt Sharma v. Union of India, determined that the Petitioner's case merited special consideration. The Court highlighted that the Petitioner's removal was solely due to absenteeism, not for any acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty, personal gain, or deliberate harm to a third party, which would ordinarily disentitle an employee from compassionate allowance.

Furthermore, the Court considered the Petitioner's personal hardships, including a heart attack and financial difficulties, as undisputed facts that strongly supported a case for compassionate allowance. The Court found the Respondents' reasoning for rejection to be "flippant" and not in line with the sympathetic consideration directed in the earlier writ petition.

Therefore, the Court quashed and set aside the Respondents' rejection and directed them to grant the Petitioner compassionate pension and other allowances in accordance with the MBPT Pension Regulation, 1965. The Petitioner is entitled to receive pension with effect from three years prior to the filing of Writ Petition No. 4268 of 2018, with arrears and statutory interest payable within 90 days.