MAHENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is in second round of litigation. The first writ petition was disposed of with liberty to make a representation to the respondents for grant of compassionate allowance. The representation made by the petitioner has been rejected vide the impugned order.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of absence from the duty for a period of 212 days, an order of dismissal was passed by the respondents. The writ petition thereupon remained successful for alteration of the punishment, however, the matter finally travelled to the Hon'ble Apex Court. The order of dismissal was upheld therein. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner become entitled for compassionate allowance as per the provisions of Rajasthan Civil Services Pensions Rules, 1996 (for short "Rules of 1996"). It has been denied by the respondents in reference to the delinquency of the petitioner. In the case of Mahinder Dutt Sharma v/s. Union of India & Ors. reported in : JT 2014 (5) SC 21, the Hon'ble Apex Court has issued direction as to when the compassionate allowance can be denied. Six criteria were laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case supra for denying benefit and the case of the petitioner does not fall in any of the criteria. The appellant before the Hon'ble Apex Court remained successful for a direction of compassionate allowance, though dismissal from service was due to absence from duties for 320 days. It is also a fact that said petitioner was found unauthorizedly absent on six occasions. In the instant case, the petitioner's service record is unblemished other than the case of dismissal on account of absence for 212 days. The petitioner may thus be granted benefit of compassionate allowance.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents opposed this petition. It submitted that in the case supra, grant of benefit was on account of gallantry award give to the petitioner therein. In the case in hand, the petitioner has not been given gallantry award so as to keep him at par with the case supra. The respondents thus rightly rejected the representation made by the petitioner.