: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.591 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO.591 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO.591 OF 2005 Union of India & Ors. .. Petitioners V/s. Prabhakar Dattatray Bhate & Anr. .. Respondents. Mr.A.Singh with Mr.D.A.Dubey for the petitioners. Mr.Sachin Gite h/f.Mr.S.S.Karkera for respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & R.Y. GANOO, JJ. R.Y. GANOO, JJ. R.Y. GANOO, JJ. DATE : 17th June, 2008. DATE : 17th June, 2008. DATE : 17th June, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr.A.Singh for the petitioners. Mr.Sachin Gite h/f.Mr.S.S.Karkera for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. The Union of India has filed this petition so as to challenge the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 9.6.2004 whereby the case of : 2 : the respondents was ordered to be reconsidered. 3. Few facts which are required to be stated are as under :- 4. Respondent No.1 happen to be the husband of Late Smt.Usha Prabhakar Bhate, who was working as a stenographer Grade-II with the petitioners. Said Smt.Bhate was subjected to punishment of dismissal by order dated 18.12.1996. 5. The respondents filed a representation on 1-10-2002 praying that the order of dismissal be converted to compulsory retirement in order to get family pension/compensatory allowance. The petitioners rejected the said application by order/letter dated 24.12.2002. Being aggrieved by order dated 24.12.2002 as above, the respondents filed Application No.793 of 2003 before Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai (For short "CAT"). That application was heard and decided by the CAT by the order dated 9.6.2004. This order dated 9.6.2004 is impugned in this petition. It is seen that the learned Members of the CAT considered the case of the petitioners in line with judgement of this Court in the case i.e W.P.No.296 of 2001 of Smt.Sumati V. Kolte v/s. Union of W.P.No.296 of 2001 of Smt.Sumati V. Kolte v/s. Union of W.P.No.296 of 2001 of Smt.Sumati V. Kolte v/s. Union of : 3 : India & Ors. India & Ors. India & Ors. and directed petitioners to consider grant of family pension to respondents under Rule 41 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 w.e.f. December, 2003. 6. Learned Advocate Mr.Singh appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that the learned Members of the CAT erred in remanding the matter to the concerned authorities for reconsideration. According to the learned Advocate Mr.Singh, CAT had no power to do so and in any case the order passed by the CAT is illegal and should be set aside. The learned Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2 contended that the order impugned is merely an order by which the Union of India is directed to reconsider the case keeping in view the long service rendered by deceased Smt.Bhate and, therefore, there is no defect in the impugned order and the same ought not to be set aside. 7. With the assistance of learned Advocates on both the sides, we have considered the impugned order and we have understood the facts of the case as also the scope of the provisions of Rule 41 of Civil Services Rules. Rule 41 provides as under :- "41. Compassionate Allowance "41. Compassionate Allowance "41. Compassionate Allowance :- (1) A Government servant who is dismissed or : 4 : removed from service shall forfeit his pension and gratuity; Provided that the authority competent to dismiss or remove him from service may, if the case is deserving of special consideration, sanction a Compassionate Allowance not exceeding two-thirds of pension or gratuity or both which would have been admissible to him if he had retired on compensation pension. (2) A Compassionate Allowance sanctioned under the proviso to sub-rule (1) shall not be less than the amount of Rupees three hundred and seventy five (Rupees one thousand two hundred and seventy five from 1-1-1996 see GID below Rule 49) per mensem". 8. It is true that if a Government servant is dismissed and removed from service, he will forfeit his pension and gratuity, however, in a deserving case, the competent authority is empowered to grant what may be referred to as Compassionate Allowance as per the provisions of Rule 41 as above. 9. After having gone through the judgement delivered by the learned Members of the CAT, we are inclined to confirm it because the learned Members of the CAT have considered the long length of service of late Smt.Bhate and the learned Members of the CAT have not expressed any view and have directed the petitioners to reconsider its decision dated 24.12.2002. The learned Members felt that the judgement in the case of Smt.Sumati (supra) is : 5 : squarely applicable to the case of Smt.Kolte wife of respondent No.1. In our considered view there was nothing wrong in directing the reconsideration of the entire matter and the argument advanced by the learned Advocate Mr.Singh that the CAT had no power to do so cannot be accepted. 10. Before we part with the judgement, we are inclined to observe that the impugned order is of such a nature that the petitioners in the normal course ought not to have challenged it. The institution of this writ petition could have been easily avoided. In our view, this is a fit case where costs should be imposed upon the petitioners and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the interest of justice would be met with if costs quantified at Rs.5,000/- is imposed upon the petitioners. 11. We are inclined to direct the petitioners to consider the case of the respondents in time bound manner. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, following order is passed :- a) Petition is dismissed. The order dated 9.6.2004 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai in O.A.No.793 of 2003 is : 6 : confirmed. b) Petitioners to pay to the respondents costs of this petition quantified at Rs.5,000/-. c) Petitioners to decide the application of the respondents within a period of 8 weeks from today and inform to the respondents the decision arrived at by them. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)