Mainpal Singh Chauhan v. Union Of India & ANR.

$~48 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6028/2026 MAINPAL SINGH CHAUHAN .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Dilip Kumar and Mr. Ashu Sharma, Advs.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

.....Respondents Through:

Mr. Rajesh Kumar, SPC.

Mr. Ajay Pal Law Officer, Inspector Athurv and Mr.

Ramniwas Yadav-CRPF

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

O R D E R

% 14.05.2026 1.

The Petitioner prays for the following reliefs:- "(a) Call for the records of the case;

(b) Issue appropriate writ, order(s) or direction(s) in the nature of writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to: (i) Consider the case of the petitioner for grant/release of the retiral benefits to include Compassionate Allowance (compensation pension) in terms of the provisions contemplated in Rule 41 read with Rule 39of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972;

(ii) Grant/release of the amount of Gratuity accrued to the petitioner during course of his service under the Gratuity Act, 1972;

(iii) For Grant/release of the leave encashment entitled to him for the leave saved by the petitioner during the course of the service.

(c) Issue appropriate writ, order(s) or direction(s) as this Hon' ble Court deem fit in the interest of justice."

2.

The services of the Petitioner were dispensed with, as he was found to have used fake Schedule Caste Certificate to secure his appointment. The Appeal filed by the Petitioner was also dismissed. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/05/2026 at 12:42:55

3.

Learned counsel representing the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner should have been granted compassionate allowance as envisaged in Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. 4.

Admittedly, the Petitioner never prayed for such relief even before the Appellate Authority, moreover, the Petitioner possesses the remedy of challenging the correctness of the Appellate Order before the Revisionist Authority as per Rule 29 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955.

5.

Keeping in view the aforesaid position, the present Petition is disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner to avail an alternative remedy.

6.

Needless to observe that this Court has not examined the correctness of the objections taken by the Respondents with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.

MAY 14, 2026/sp/kb The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/05/2026 at 12:42:55