IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP.No. 16383 of 1999(A)
1. N.SUKUMARAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UNION OF INDIA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI
For Respondent :SMT.BINDU K NAIR - ACGSC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :03/03/2009
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
==================
O.P.No. 16383 of 1999.
==================
Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner was recruited as a pioneer in the General Reserve
Engineering Force with effect from 5.2.1965. He continued in service
till 15.7.1981, on which date he was removed from service as a
punishment pursuant to proceedings initiated under the Central Civil
Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, for participating in a
demonstration against the Government. The appeal against that order
also failed. Subsequently, he put in an application for compassionate
allowance as provided under Rule 41 of Central Civil Service Pension
Rules, 1972, which reads as follows:
“41. Compassionate allowance.
(1) A Government servant who is dismissed or 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
su-rule (1) shall be less than the amount of Rupees three hundred and
seventy-five per mensem.”
However, the same was rejected by Ext.P6 order. Ext.P6 order is
under challenge before me.
2. I have considered the contentions of the petitioner.
2
3. Admittedly the petitioner was removed from service. Under
Rule 41(1) of the Rules, the Government Servant who is removed from
service shall forfeit his pension and gratuity. Although the petitioner
would contend that he is entitled to compassionate allowance as per
the proviso to the said rule, I am of opinion that proviso to Rule 41(1)
is a discretion vested with the competent authority to sanction
compassionate allowance. The petitioner cannot claim such allowance
as of right. The proper authority has taken a decision to deny the
petitioner that benefit. I do not think that such denial amounts to
violation of any right of the petitioner. I am unable also to find that the
discretion vested in the authority who passed the impugned order has
not been exercised properly. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the
original petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
///True copy///
P.A. to Judge
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
==================
O.P.No. 16383 of 1999-A
==================
J U D G M E N T
3rd March, 2009