AMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as Patwari in the year 1949 in the erstwhile State of Punjab and subsequently, when the State of Haryana came into existence, he opted to serve in the Haryana State. A case of embezzlement of Rs. 2260/- was registered against the petitioner on 18th April, 1974 under Section 409, Indian Penal Code, at P.S. Gharaunda, and in that case, he was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Panipat, vide his judgment dated 16th November, 1974. However, taking a lenient view, the learned Magistrate released the petitioner on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act on furnishing bail bond to be of good behaviour in the sum of Rs. 3,000/- for one year. Vide order dated 9th June, 1975, passed by the Collector, District Jind, the petitioner was removed from service. It may be pointed out here that the petitioner did not challenge the aforesaid order of his removal from service. After the lapse of more than 20 years, the petitioner has filed this Writ petition for a direction to the respondents to grant compassionate pension allowance under Rule 2.5 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume II, as applicable to the State of Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the Rules).

(2.) Notice of motion on this petition was issued to the respondents. Written statement on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 6 has been filed. In the written statement, the respondents have taken a preliminary objection that the provisions of Rule 2.5 of the Rules were not applicable to the present case as the conduct of the petitioner who was convicted by the Criminal Court, did not deserve special consideration as provided in the Rules. Another preliminary objection taken by the respondent-State is that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on account of laches as this petition has been filed after a lapse of more than 2 decades from the date when the petitioner was removed from service.

(3.) Mr. Shalendra Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the petitioner was an old man of 70 years and had no other source of income and was totally dependent on his son. He further submitted that since the petitioner was not in a position to work, the respondents should be directed to grant compassionate allowance under Rule 2.5 of the Rules. The learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, on the order hand, submitted that under Rule 2.5, the Government had an absolute discretion to grant or not to grant any compassionate allowance and keeping in view the facts of the this case, the Government exercised its discretion in the right manner in not granting any compassionate allowance.