JUDGMENT

Arun Palli, J.

This is an intra Court appeal, under Clause X of the Letters Patent, against an order and judgment dated 17.01.2023, rendered by the learned Single Judge, vide which, the writ petition preferred by the appellant was dismissed.

2. The facts that are required to be noticed are limited.

3. The appellant was employed with the respondent-department as Kanungo. He was implicated in FIR No.88 dated 07.06.1995, under Sections 420 , 465, 467, 468, 471, 193 and 120-B of IPC, at Police Station, City Abohar. He was convicted by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Abohar, on 28.11.2001, and sentenced for a period of two years under Section 467 and 1 year under Sections 120-B, 465, 468 and 471 IPC. His appeal against conviction was dismissed on 12.03.2004. Vide order dated 16.10.2008, the appellant was dismissed from service by the District Collector, Ferozepur, being guilty of criminal misconduct. Where-after, in a criminal revision No.763 of 2004, filed by him and which was pending, this Court, vide judgment dated 22.11.2011, reduced his sentence under Section 467 IPC to 1 year instead of 2 years. Further, in an SLP, preferred against the said judgment, the Supreme Court, vide order and judgment dated 29.10.2014, though affirmed his conviction but reduced the sentence of 1 year to the period already undergone. Later, in terms of Rule 2.5 of PUNJAB CIVIL SERVICES RULES Vol.II, Part-II, which postulates awarding compassionate allowance to those employees who were dismissed or removed from service and not entitled to pension, he moved the authorities to claim the said benefit. However, vide a detailed order dated 17.12.2021, his claim was rejected. It was in this background, the appellant approached this Court, vide a writ petition, which, as indicated above, has since been dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was dismissed from service during the pendency of the criminal revision in which his sentence was reduced to 1 year for commission of offence under Section 467 IPC. And, eventually, 1 year sentence was further reduced to the period already undergone by him by the Supreme Court. Therefore, he submits that the authorities ought to have considered the intervening circumstances while examining his claim under Rule 2.5 (ibid). Further, he submits that his son, who was 27 years old and his wife aged about 69 years were dependent upon him and post his dismissal from service the family was/is suffering from acute financial crisis. Thus, in reference to the purport and intent of Rule 2.5 (ibid), he asserts that order passed by the authorities declining his claim as also the impugned order and judgment were unsustainable.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records.

6. In context of the limited issues that arise for consideration, we consider it expedient, at the outset, to refer to Rule 2.5 (ibid):-

"No pension may be granted to a Government employee dismissed or removed for misconduct, insolvency or inefficiency; but to Government employee so dismissed or removed, compassionate allowances may be granted when they are deserving of special consideration; provided that the allowance granted to any Government employee shall not exceed two-thirds of the pension which would have been admissible to him if he had retired on medical certificate.

Note 1-This rule vests Government with an absolute discretion to grant or not to grant any compassionate allowance, the only restriction being that if granted, it shall not exceed the maximum of two thirds of the pension that would be admissible to the officer concerned on retirement on medical certificate. It is practically