IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.11646 of 2010 Date of Decision : July 06, 2010. Satbir Singh .....Petitioner versus The Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitram Nigam Ltd & Anr. ....Respondent .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.A.S.Tewatia, 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 peon in the erstwhile Haryana State Electricity Board in the year 1981. He was habitual absentee from duty as is evident from the following details given in the impugned order:- i) Charge-sheet No.48/ENG-3428 dated 4.11.1988 and memo No.CH-128/A/ENG-3428 dated 4.1.1993 for willful absent from duty for 215 days; ii) Charge-sheet No.224/ENG-3428 dated 24.1.2001 for remaining willful absent from duty for 132 days; iii) Charge-sheet No.229/ENG-3428 dated 27.3.2001 for remaining willful absent from duty for 328 days; iv) Charge-sheet No.16/ENG-3428/Vol.II dated 8.1.2003 C.W.P.No .11646 of 2010 2 for remaining absent from duty for 103 days, and v) Charge-sheet No.33/ENG-3428 Vol.II dated 7.7.2003 for remaining absent from duty for 495 days.” Finally, he was removed from service. Vide the impugned order dated 13.11.2009 (Annexure P-5), the claim of petitioner for release of the retiral dues on account of his alleged service of 25 years, has been declined by the Competent Authority except to the extent of payment of G.P.F. alongwith admissible interest thereupon. The petitioner places reliance upon Rule 2.5 of the Punjab C.S.R. Volume-II which provides that “no pension can be granted to a Government employee dismissed or removed for misconduct, insolvency or inefficiency, except compassionate allowance which can be granted when he is deserving of special consideration”. The petitioner was proven absentee who exhibited complete indiscipline, nor once but repeatedly. The respondents are, thus, justified in declining any `compassionate allowance' to the petitioner as there existed no special consideration in his favour. No interference with the impugned order in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court is called for. Dismissed. July 06, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE