Dwarka Prasad Saket vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 14040 MP

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA                                            PRADESH
                 AT JABALPUR
                                          BEFORE
                 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
                                     CHIEF JUSTICE
                                               &
                  HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA

                         ON THE 1st OF NOVEMBER, 2022
                           WRIT APPEAL No. 1253 of 2022


BETWEEN:-

DWARKA PRASAD SAKET S/O LATE SHRI
AYODHYA PRASAD SAKET, AGED ABOUT 62
YEARS, R/O DHAWARI GALI NO.1, CHANDMAARI
ROAD, DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                            .....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI AMIT KHATRI - ADVOCATE )

AND

1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
      THROUGH    PRINCIPAL   SECRETARY,
      REVENUE    DEPARTMENT,    VALLABH
      BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)


2.    THE COLLECTOR SATNA, DISTRICT SATNA
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                        .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. JAHANVI PANDIT - DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This appeal coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Vishal Mishra passed the following:
                                          2




                                     ORDER

Assailing the order dated 09.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing Writ Petition No.15243 of 2020, the writ petitioner is in appeal.

2. It is the case of writ petitioner that he was working in the respondent department as a Revenue Inspector at Singhpur. He continued to work with utmost devotion and sincerity for a period 27 years and thereafter he was discharged owing to his involvement in criminal case under the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was convicted in a criminal case vide judgment of conviction dated 28.03.2006. The appeal against the judgment of conviction is filed, which is pending consideration before this Court as Criminal Appeal No.694 of 2006.

3. The writ petitioner applied for compassionate allowance on 22.06.2006 before the competent authority in pursuance to Rule 38 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short 'the Rules of 1976'). The Additional Collector being satisfied with the financial condition of the petitioner, vide order dated 31.07.2006, has disposed off the application that the case of the petitioner can be considered after final judgment is passed in pending criminal appeal. The matter was considered by the erstwhile Collector Satna who after scrutinizing the matter has sanctioned the compassionate allowance of Rs.3025/- vide order dated 16.04.2013 in pursuance to Rule 38 of the Rules of 1976. Thereafter, the circular dated 11.06.2018 has been issued by the State Government for enhancing the compassionate allowance to Rs.7750/-. The petitioner applied for claiming the benefits of the enhanced compassionate allowance before the respondent No.2, who instead of considering the same has passed an order even rejecting the initial compassionate allowance extended to the petitioner and directed to recover the amount already granted to the petitioner. The aforesaid order was assailed by the petitioner by filing petition before this Court being Writ Petition No.10556 of 2019 and this Court vide order dated 06.08.2020

quashed the order dated 14.05.2019 granting liberty to the respondents to re- examine the case of petitioner in the light of order dated 31.07.2006 and to take decision with respect to entitlement of the petitioner for getting compassionate allowance. In pursuance to the same, the authorities considered the case of the petitioner and passed the impugned order rejecting the claim of compassionate allowance.

4. It is his case that once the benefit of compassionate allowance is already been granted to him vide order dated 16.04.2013 after his case being examined and scrutinized by the competent authority and in pursuance to the same the benefits were extended to the petitioner, the superior authority was having no authority to cancel the earlier order granting compassionate allowance to the petitioner. The authorities, at the most, could have rejected the application for claiming the enhanced compassionate allowance filed by the petitioner. The authority had virtually exceeded the jurisdiction in rejecting the earlier order of sanction by the competent authority without there being any challenge to the same. The writ court has failed to consider the aforesaid aspect of the case and has dismissed the writ petition. The petition has been dismissed on the ground that in the earlier round of litigation, the liberty was extended to the respondent to examine the entitlement of the petitioner with respect to compassionate allowance. After scrutinizing the case, the authorities have found that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of compassionate allowance.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has supported the impugned order stating that in pursuance to the liberty extended to the petitioner in the earlier round of litigation they have considered the case of the petitioner in the light of Rule 38 of the Rules of 1976 and have found that the petitioner is not a deserving candidate for special consideration and therefore, he is not entitled for grant of compassionate allowance. It is argued that Rule 38 of the Rules of 1976 postulates and grants liberty to the authority to examine the case of a dismissed

or removed employee and if the authority finds that the terminated employee deserves special consideration only then he is entitled for compassionate allowance. The writ court has considered the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahinder Dutt Sharma vs. Union of India and others, (2014) 11 SCC 684 and has passed the impugned order, which is just and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case as the petitioner stands convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Therefore, the authorities have rightly not found the petitioner to be entitled for the benefit of compassionate allowance.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. From perusal of the record, it is seen that petitioner was convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act against which an appeal is pending consideration before this Court. On earlier occasion the case of the petitioner was scrutinized by the competent authority and there was a sanction of compassionate allowance but on application being filed by the petitioner seeking enhancement of the compassionate allowance in view of the circular issued by the State Government, the case of the petitioner was considered by the authorities and the competent authority i.e. respondent No.2 has found that petitioner is not a deserving candidate for any special consideration for sanction of compassionate allowance as he has been convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

8. Rule 38 of the Rules of 1976 is required to be seen, which 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-third 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."

[Emphasis supplied]

From a bare perusal of the aforesaid rule, it is apparently clear that the person should be deserving of a special consideration. The petitioner being convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, does not deserve any special consideration as is being opined by the authorities. The aforesaid aspect was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahinder Dutt Sharma (supra), which was considered by the learned writ court. The authorities were well within their jurisdiction and discretion to consider the case and if they found that the petitioner is a deserving candidate for special consideration of compassionate allowance, only in that circumstance, the benefit could have been extended.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant failed to demonstrate that appellant is a deserving candidate for special consideration, therefore, no benefit can be extended to the petitioner. The learned writ court has rightly considered the aforesaid aspect and has dismissed the writ petition. The order is just and proper and does not call for any interference in the writ appeal.

10. The writ appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.

            (RAVI MALIMATH)                                        (VISHAL MISHRA)
             CHIEF JUSTICE                                             JUDGE
Irf.
       Digitally signed by
       MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI
       Date: 2022.11.07
       10:43:53 +05'30'