- 1 - S.B.CIVL WRIT PETITION NO. 807/2006 (Bhanwar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) DATE OF ORDER : 25/7/2008 HON'BLE JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr.R.S.Saluja, for the petitioner. Mr.B.L.Tiwari, Government Counsel. In this petition, petitioner is seeking direction to respondents for considering his case for grant of compassionate allowance under Rule 43 of the Pension Rules, 1996. The case of petitioner is that after taking recourse to Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 petitioner was removed from service in the year 1996 and order of punishment was upheld by the appellate authority as well as reviewing authority. The petitioner without challenging the validity of the punishment order only made a prayer to direct the respondents to consider his case under Rule 43 for compassionate allowance. Rule 43 of the Rules of 1996 reads as under:- “Rule 43. 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 - 2 - 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 sub rule (1) shall not be less than the amount of Rupees three hundred per mensem.” Upon perusal of Rule 43 it is revealed that discretion is left with the Government to grant compassionate allowance in the event of dismissal or removal of government servant from service. Therefore, obviously, at the time of passing order of removal if it is found that misconduct is not so serious or require any consideration for grant of compassionate allowance then it is the duty of the welfare State and competent authority to take decision under Rule 43, which has not been taken in this case. In view of the fact that at the time of passing order of removal, petitioner's case was not considered under Rule 43 for compassionate allowance, therefore, ground raised by the respondents with regard to delay in claiming benefit under Rule 43 is required to be ignored. - 3 - In view of above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents to consider the case of petitioner sympathetically for grant of compassionate allowance under Rule 43 of the Rules of 1996 because petitioner is not challenging the impugned order of dismissal. The respondents are directed to consider the case of petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the directions of this Court. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS),J . pb