IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 2427 of 1998 . Date of Decision : March 25, 2010. Ratti Ram, Ex. Naik, No. 610020215 30th Bn. Central Reserve Police Force, Airport Aggartala, Tripur, Now resident of V.P.O. Mandi, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mohindergarh ...... Petitioner . Versus. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, and others. ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Jagjit Singh, Central Government Counsel, for respondents. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). Counsel for the petitioner after arguing for some time submits that no order had been passed by respondent No. 4 debarring the petitioner from retiral benefits. He relies upon Rule 41 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, to contend that the Punishing Authority has power to consider the claim of the petitioner to sanction compassionate allowance, which may not exceed 2/3rd of the pension or gratuity, which would have been admissible to the employee, if he had retired on compassionate pension. He contends that the petitioner is entitled to the pensionary benefits in the light of the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Major G.S. Sodhi Versus Union of India, 1992 (5) S.L.R. 108. He contends that since no penalty for forfeiting the pensionary benefits has been passed nor any order debarring the claim of pensionary benefits to the petitioner has been passed by the Punishing Authority, the petitioner is entitled to pensionary benefits. He contends that the Rules applicable to the claim of the petitioner are para materia to the Regulations, which were under consideration before Hon'ble the C.W.P. No. 2427 of 1998 . -2- Supreme Court in the abovementioned case and thus the claim of the petitioner deserves to be allowed. He contends that the petitioner would submit a detailed representation in support of his contention within a period of three weeks from today and a direction be issued to respondents No. 2 to 4 to decide the same within some specified time. Counsel for respondents does not dispute the factual assertions as has been put forth by counsel for the petitioner and states that if such a representation is made, the same shall be considered and decided and decision will be taken thereon expeditiously. Without going into merits of the case nor commenting thereon and in view of the statement made by counsel for the petitioner, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents No. 2 to 4 to consider and decide the representation, if so preferred by the petitioner in the light of the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, which has been referred to above within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order. The decision so taken be conveyed to the petitioner forthwith. In case, the petitioner is held entitled to the benefit as claimed by him in the representation to be filed, the said benefits be released to him within a period of three months thereafter, and in case an adverse order to the interest of the petitioner is passed by respondents, the petitioner shall be at liberty to challenge the same and take all the grounds, which would be available to him including the grounds, which have been taken in the present writ petition. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE March 25, 2010. sjks.