1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 3140/2010. Shri Ashok T. Chaudhary ...VERSUS.. Bank of Baroda & another =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==- Mr. B. Mohata, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. C.S. Samudra, Advocate for Respondents. C ORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK; AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATED : 28th June, 2011. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent to pay the petitioner pensionary benefits as prayed for or in the alternative, to pay the compensation to the petitioner. The petitioner was working as a Clerk with the respondent- Bank and after holding a Departmental Enquiry against the petitioner, the petitioner was removed from service by an order dated 31.08.2004. The request of the petitioner for grant of pensionary benefits was rejected by the respondent. Against the order of his removal, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, but the same was also dismissed. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent to either pay the petitioner the pensionary benefits or to grant compassionate allowance to the petitioner, in view of the provisions of Clause 31 of the Bank of Baroda (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a 2 perusal of the Regulations of 1995, it is clear that the petitioner could not have claimed the pensionary benefits in view of the provisions of Regulation 22. In view of the provisions of Regulation 22, an employee was not qualified for pensionary benefits on his removal from the service of the Bank as his removal entails forfeiture of his entire past service. In view of Regulation 22, the petitioner is not entitled to claim the pensionary benefits. The petitioner also cannot claim the compassionate allowance from the respondent as of right, as it is clearly provided in Regulation 31 of the Regulation 1995, that the authority may grant compassionate allowance only in a special and deserving case. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the respondent that the service record of the petitioner was tainted and as he was charged and punished on four occasions. The petitioner was guilty of fraud and was removed from service in pursuance of a departmental enquiry and in the facts and circumstances of the case, since the case of the petitioner was not special and deserving, the respondent was justified in not sanctioning the compassionate allowance to the petitioner. We see nothing wrong with the action of the respondent in refusing to grant the pensionary benefits or compassionate allowance to the petitioner. The judgment reported in 1995 Supp (4) SCC 715 (Ex-Capt. Ashwani Kumar Katoch Vs. Union of India & others), and relied on by the counsel for the petitioner, cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE NSN