Compassionate allowance under Rule 2.5 of Punjab Civil Service Rules is distinct from pension and must be evaluated independently, regardless of prior dismissal for misconduct.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, J. (Oral)

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 07.01.2020 (Annexure P-5) whereby claim of the petitioner for compassionate allowance in terms of Rule 2.5 of Punjab Civil Service Rules Volume II has been declined.

2. The petitioner on 24.06.1975 joined Punjab Police as Constable and was promoted as Head Constable on 20.06.1980. He was further promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector w.e.f. 10.11.1990. He sought Ex-India leave from 05.11.1994 to 04.12.1994. He was supposed to re-join after completion of leave period, however, he failed to re-join and respondent initiated Disciplinary Proceedings against him. The Competent Authority after completing enquiry concluded that there is willful disobedience on the part of petitioner and accordingly Disciplinary Authority dismissed him from service. He unsuccessfully preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority. He preferred CWP No.15123 of 2013 before this Court seeking setting aside of order of dismissal. This Court vide order dated 17.07.2013 dismissed the said petition.

3. After dismissal of writ petition against order of dismissal from service, the petitioner raised another issue of compassionate allowance in terms of Rule 2.5 of Punjab Civil Service Rules. He preferred CWP No.19025 of 2019 before this Court seeking direction to respondents to consider his claim and decide legal notice dated 24.12.2018. This Court without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, directed the respondents to decide his claim by passing speaking order within 3 months. The respondent by impugned order dated 07.01.2020 has rejected claim of the petitioner.

4. Mr. K.S. Dadwal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent has rejected claim of the petitioner as was re-considering question of his dismissal from service whereas petitioner had claimed for compassionate allowance in terms of Rule 2.5 of Punjab Civil Service Rules.

5. On being confronted with findings of SSP, Hoshiarpur, learned State counsel expressed his inability to controvert the fact that SSP has not adverted with Rule 2.5 of Punjab Civil Service Rules whereas representation of the petitioner has been rejected as there was prayer to re-consider his dismissal from service.

6. I have heard the arguments of both sides and with the able assistance of learned counsels have perused the record.

7. The petitioner is not disputing his dismissal from service. The claim of the petitioner is confined to compassionate allowance in terms of Rule 2.5 of Punjab Civil Service Rules. The said rule is reproduced as below:

"2.5. 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 impossible in view of the wide variations that naturally exist in the circumstances attending each case, to lay down categorically, precise principles that can uniformly be applied to individual cases. Each case has, therefore, to be considered on its merits and a conclusion has to be reached on the question whether there were any such extenuating features in the case as would make the punishment awarded, though it may have been necessary in the interest of Government, unduly hard on the individual. In considering this question it has be