Compassionate allowance can only be granted to an employee eligible for pension and would have been granted pension, but for the imposition of a major penalty of dismissal, removal, or termination.

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. (Oral)--Present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 27.02.2019 and a writ of mandamus directing Respondent No. 2/Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the `Bank') to grant compassionate allowance to the Petitioner being a case `deserving of special consideration'.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the necessary facts are that Petitioner was appointed as an Accounts Clerk with the Bank on 13.12.1976 and thereafter as a Probationary Officer on 14.02.1983. On 06.07.2001, Petitioner was promoted as a Branch Manager and continued so till he was dismissed from service.

3. Major penalty proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner by issuance of a charge-sheet dated 17.05.2004, which culminated into a penalty of `dismissal which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment' in terms of Regulation 4(j) of Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. Suspension period was treated as period not spent on duty, disentitling the Petitioner to pay and allowances in excess of the subsistence allowance already paid during the suspension period. Appeal filed against the dismissal order was rejected on 12.03.2008 and Review Petition also suffered the same fate on 19.10.2010.

4. On 20.10.2010, Petitioner requested the Bank to permit him to join the Pension Scheme under Bank of India (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the `Regulations, 1995') followed by several reminders in 2011 and 2012. Petitioner also approached the National Commission for Scheduled Castes alleging inaction and by order dated 31.05.2016, the learned Commission directed the Bank to reconsider the case of the Petitioner. Vide order dated 02.09.2016, Bank rejected Petitioner's claim and the order was communicated to the Petitioner.

5. On 20.09.2017, Petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court being W.P.(C) 8377/2017 for grant of pensionary benefits, which was withdrawn with liberty to file a representation for grant of compassionate allowance, in accordance with the relevant Regulations.

6. Pursuant to the liberty granted by the Court, Petitioner preferred a representation dated 25.09.2017 seeking compassionate allowance, but the representation was rejected by order dated 06.10.2017, on the ground that dismissed employees are not entitled to exercise option for pension and therefore, compassionate allowance cannot be granted. Petitioner thereafter again filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) 9974/2017, which was disposed of by the Court on 14.01.2019 observing that the impugned order dated 06.10.2017 was an unreasoned order and directing the Bank to decide the representation afresh, keeping in view Regulation 31 of Regulations, 1995 as well as the judgment of the Madras High Court in D. Kalaichevlan v. Union Bank of India and Ors., 2015 SCC OnLine Mad 9114. Pursuant to the directions of the Court, the Bank again considered the pleas of the Petitioner, in light of Regulation 31 and the judgment in D. Kalaichevlan (supra) and passed an order on 27.02.2019, rejecting the request for compassionate allowance. It is this order which is impugned by the Petitioner in the present writ petition.

7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner assails the impugned order on multifarious grounds. It is argued that it was not open to the Bank to deny compassionate allowance to the Petitioner on the ground that he has suffered a major penalty of dismissal, as Regulation 31 itself provides an exception to the general rule that dismissal, removal or termination entails forfeiture of Pension and the avowed object is to grant portion of the pension to such an employee on compassionate grounds, in special and deserving cases.

8. It is further urged that the case of the Petitioner deserves a special consideration since both his wife and he are senior citizens, who do not own any property and are suffering from variou