Removal from Service for absenteeism – Whether entitled to Compassionate allowance
The petitioner was appointed on 1.9.1986. On 11.2.2005, he was given charge-sheet for unauthorised absenteeism for 646 days and for violation of MBPT Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976.
The petitioner submitted reply and explained absence because of accident, trauma, psychological impact, and illness.
By the order dated 29.8.2005, the petitioner was awarded penalty of removal from service. This was confirmed by the Industrial Tribunal and the High Court. However, in the order dated 29.8.2023, the High Court directed to consider the petitioner’s case for compassionate allowance as per Rule 35(1) of the Municipal Port Trust Pension Regulation Rules, 2001.
The representation dated 27.9.2023 of the petitioner was rejected.
HELD, on consideration of the judgment of the Supreme Court in 2014 (11) SCC 684 in Mahinder Dutt Sharma case, the case of the petitioner is different. It was a case of removal for unauthorised absence and is not covered by the dis-entitling categories laid down by the Supreme Court. Moreover, the petitioner having already suffered the removal for absenteeism, the said issue is no longer relevant for consideration while assessing the petitioner’s case for compassionate allowance. The writ petition was allowed.
Judgment dated 9.5.2025 of the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition NO.2063 of 2025 of Mohammad Shafique Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh Vs. The Chairman, Mumbai Port Trust and others
