IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.4101/2008 Decided on:14.9.2010 _____________________________________________ Naresh Lal. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner : Ms. Ambika Kotwal, Advocate vice Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. A.G. with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. Advocate General. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge ( oral ) . Petitioner was appointed as Constable on 1.4.1965. He was posted at Police Post Ghatta under Police Station, Jogindernagar in the year 1981. He got registered a case under section 353 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code vide FIR No. 103 dated 17.8.1981 against Sh. Banarasi Dass, Forest Chowkidar, which was found to be false. The matter was referred to the District Magistrate under rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules for approval. The District Magistrate appointed Additional District Magistrate to make an inquiry in the matter. The report was submitted to the District Magistrate. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes Petitioner was found guilty. The Superintendent of Police appointed Additional Superintendent of Police to hold departmental inquiry against the petitioner vide order dated 1.7.1982. The inquiry report was accepted and on the basis of which the petitioner was dismissed from service by the competent authority vide office order dated 30.10.1982. He approached the Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh for grant of compassionate allowances. It was decided vide order dated 24.3.1994 to grant him compassionate allowance since he had rendered 18 years of service and he had to support his parents, wife and children. He was granted compassionate allowance on 18.4.1994 by the Director General of Police with effect from 24.3.1994. The P.P.O. was issued on 30.5.1994. Petitioner made a representation to the Director General of Police, i.e. respondent No.2 seeking the grant of compassionate allowance with effect from 30.10.1982 instead of 24.3.1994. The same was considered and rejected by the respondent on 9.7.1997. Ms. Ambika Kotwal has strenuously argued that her client was entitled to get compassionate allowance with effect from 30.10.1982. She has placed reliance on rule 41 and rule 83 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that the services of the petitioner with effect from 30.10.1982 to 24.3.1994 stood forfeited and there was no occasion for the State to grant him compassionate allowance with effect from 30.10.1982. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. Petitioner’s representation made in the year 1983 has been favourably considered by the Director General of Police whereby he has been granted the compassionate allowance. However, the same has been granted with effect from 24.3.1994. Necessary P.P.O. was issued on 30.5.1994. A bare perusal of rule 41 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 makes it abundantly clear that the compassionate allowance for all intents and purposes is a pension and it can also be computed on the lines of normal pension. According to the language employed in rule 83 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, the pension is available to the Government servant from the date he ceased to be the Government employee. Mr. P.M. Negi has failed to bring to the notice of the Court any provision on the basis of which the pension can be granted from prospective date as per Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The pension is to be paid except the family pension from the date the incumbent retires from service. The contention of Mr. P.M. Negi that the services rendered by the petitioner were forfeited merits rejection. Once the order has been passed by the competent authority to grant compassionate allowance to the petitioner, the same was to be taken to its logical end by granting the same with effect from 30.10.1982 instead of 24.3.1994. Consequently, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure PA dated 9.7.1997 is quashed and set aside. Petitioner is held entitled to compassionate allowance/pension with effect from 30.10.1982. This amount shall carry interest @ 7% per annum. Needful be done within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 14.9.2010 *awasthi*