--- 1 --- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE S.B.: HON'BLE MR. S. C. SHARMA, J WRIT PETITITION NO. 12034 / 2010 RAMESHWAR S/O LAKSHMICHAND SHARMA Vs. TEHSILDAR SHAJAPUR & OTHERS * * * * * O R D E R ( 7/4/2011) The petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent State to grant pension to the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Patwari on 15/2/1963 and was placed under suspension on 6/6/77. Petitioner has further stated that he was convicted in a criminal case for offences under the provisions of Indian Penal Code as well as Prevention of Corruption Act by a judgment of conviction dt. 15/4/78 and pursuant to his conviction an order was passed by the appointing authority dismissing the petitioner from service. Petitioner has further stated that being aggrieved by order of removal dt. 31/5/94 as well as the order passed by the appellate authority, an Original Application was preferred before the M P State Administrative Tribunal and the same was --- 2 --- allowed on 23/6/98 on the ground that the respondents have violated the provisions of M P Civil Services (Classification Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 by automatically discontinuing the services of the petitioner and by not passing an order under Rule 19 of the M P Civil Services (Classification Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966. The matter was remanded back to the appointing authority to pass a fresh order keeping in view the conviction of the petitioner dt. 15/4/78. It is pertinent to note that the conviction of the petitioner was upheld by this Court and the appeal preferred by the petitioner against conviction was also dismissed on 28/10/80. The petitioner's grievance is that the respondents have later on passed an order dt. 27/1/99 after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and no pension is being paid to him though an order of removal from service has been passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by the apex court in the case of Rameshwar Yadav Vs. Union of India (1991 SCC (L&S) 866) and his contention is that in the light of the judgment delivered by the apex court he is entitled for grant of pension as he has been removed from service. Learned counsel has also argued before this court that the petitioner is entitled for --- 3 --- compassionate allowance keeping in view the provision of Rule 38 M P Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. A detailed reply has been filed in the matter and the stand of the State Government is that the petitioner who has been removed from service vide order dt. 27/1/99 is not entitled for pension and the order has rightly been passed by the competent authority keeping in view the petitioner's conviction vide judgment of conviction dt. 15/4/78. The respondents have also stated that they have passed a speaking order taking into account the provisions of M P Civil Services (Classification Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 and therefore no interference is warranted in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record and the petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself with the consent of the parties. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was convicted on 15/4/78 for offences under the Indian Penal Code as well as the Prevention of Corruption Act. The appeal preferred by the petitioner before this Court has also been dismissed on 28/10/80 meaning thereby the conviction of the petitioner has been upheld. The petitioner was earlier also --- 4 --- discontinued from service vide order dt. 31/5/94 and the same was subjected to judicial scrutiny before the M P State Administrative Tribunal. The M P State Administrative Tribunal by passing an order dt. 23/6/98 in OA NO. 1141/95 has directed the appointing authority to pass a fresh order under R. 19 of the M P Civil Services (Classification Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966. The respondents have passed a fresh order and an appropriate show cause notice was issued in the matter. The impugned order has been passed on 27/1/1999. This Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents have rightly passed the impugned order dt. 27/1/1999 keeping in view the conviction of the petitioner for offences under the provisions of Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act. Rule 24 of the MP Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 reads as under : 24. Forfeiture of service on dismissal or removal. - Dismissal or removal of a Government servant from a service or post automatically entails forfeiture of his past service. The aforesaid statutory provision of law provides for forfeiture of past service automatically in case of removal of a Government servant. In the present case, the petitioner has been removed from service and therefore as his entire past service stands forfeited, the question of granting pension to the --- 5 --- petitioner in the light of the aforesaid statutory provision of law does not arise. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also prayed for grant of compassionate allowance. Rule 38 of the M P Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 deals with compassionate allowance and the same reads as under : 38. Compassionate allowances. (1) A Government servant who is dismissed or removed from service shall forfeit his pension and gratuity : Provided that the authority competent to 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 limit specified in sub-rule (5) of rule 43. The aforesaid statutory provision of law makes it very clear that compassionate allowance is granted to a Government servant who is dismissed or removed from service only in case if he is retired of compensation pension. The petitioner was certainly not at all entitled for compensation pension as per the provisions contained in Rule 36 of the M P Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 and therefore the question of granting --- 6 --- compassionate allowance to the petitioner keeping in view the specific bar under Rule 38 of the M P Civil Services (Classification Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 also does not arise. This Court has carefully gone through the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, delivered by the apex court and the apex court was dealing with Regulations of 1961 and Pension Payment Instructions 1973 framed under the provisions of the Army Act, 1961 r/w Army Rules, 1954. In the aforesaid case there was specific provision for grant of pension and in light of those specific provision contained under the Pension Regulations and Pension Payment Instructions, the aforesaid judgment has been delivered. In the present case, the statutory provisions governing the field does not provide for grant of pension in case a government servant is dismissed or removed from service nor the petitioner is entitled for any compassionate allowance in the light of the provisions of the Rules of 36 and 38 of the M P Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. Resultantly no case for interference is made out in the matter. This petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (S. C. SHARMA) J U D G E KR