IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.10754 of 2007 Date of Decision : February 08, 2011. Amrik Singh .....Petitioner versus Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.K.S.Dadwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner was appointed as a Process Server in the Sessions Division at Hoshiarpur on 7.3.1981. He was removed from service pursuant to a departmental enquiry vide order dated 3.2.1996 (Annexure P-2) which has already attained finality. The petitioner after a long spell, served the Registrar General of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the District and Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur and the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hoshiarpur, with a legal notice dated 26.2.2007 (Annexure P-4) claiming pension-cum-compassionate allowance under Rule 2.5 of the Punjab Civil Services Vol.II. The above stated legal notice was replied by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hoshiarpur on 15.5.2007 (Annexure P-5) maintaining that since the petitioner was removed from C.W.P.No .10754 of 2007 2 service after holding a departmental enquiry, he was not entitled for any retiral benefits like pension, gratuity or other retiral benefits. 2] Aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court but his writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.7.2007 on the ground of inordinate delay and latches. The petitioner went in appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court who vide order dated 2.8.2010 has set-aside the order dated 20.7.2007 passed by this Court and remitted the matter to this Court for consideration of the petitioner's claim on merits. 3] Rule 2.5 of the C.S.R., Vol.II contemplates that no pension shall be admissible to a Government employee who has been dismissed or removed from service for misconduct etc. but such an employee may be granted “compassionate allowance” whenever he deserves so on “special consideration”. The Rule (ibid) thus does not entitle a government employee to seek 'compassionate allowance' as a matter of right but enables him to plead/highlight the special consideration, if any, to justify invocation of its powers by the competent authority and grant compassionate allowance under the above noted exception to the main rule. 4] Since the matter requires to be considered on merits by the Competent Authority, it is obligatory upon it to consider the circumstances, if any, pleaded by the petitioner in his legal notice dated 26.2.2007 (Annexure P-4) and pass an appropriate order as to whether or not the petitioner deserves to be paid such 'compassionate allowance'. C.W.P.No .10754 of 2007 3 Suffice it to say that the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hoshiarpur was not the competent to take such a decision. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the learned District and Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur to consider the above- stated claim of the petitioner and/or forward the same to the prescribed competent authority for an appropriate decision, within a period of four months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. The above direction shall not be construed an expression of views on the merits of the petitioner's claim. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. February 08, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE