Orissa High Court
Pramod Kumar Sarangi vs State Of Orissa .... Opposite Parties on 7 April, 2025
Author: V. Narasingh
Bench: V. Narasingh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.20389 of 2023
In the matter of an application under Article 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India.
------------------
Pramod Kumar Sarangi .... Petitioner
-versus-
1. State of Orissa .... Opposite Parties
2. Director General of
Police, Odisha, Cuttack
3. Inspector General, (IG)
Odisha State
Signal/Communication,
Cuttack
4. Superintendent of Police
Signals, Odisha, Cuttack
For Petitioner : Mr. S.K. Rath, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. Sidharth Prasad Das, ASC
CORAM:
JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
DATE OF HEARING AND JUDGMENT : 07.04.2025
V. Narasingh, J.
W.P.(C) No.20389 of 2023
1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and
learned counsel for the State.
2. The Petitioner who was working as a RT
Constable assails the impugned order at
Annexure-16 by which his prayer for compassionate
allowance in terms of the Rule 46 of OCS (Pension)
Rules, 1992 was rejected.
3. The brief facts which are germane for just
adjudication are indicated thus:-
The Petitioner joined as a RT Constable on
05.08.1983 and by order dated 07.09.1993, he was
promoted to the rank of ASI and it is submitted that
because of supervening circumstances the
Petitioner could not attend the medical Board and
he was reverted to his previous rank of Constable.
Thereafter, the Petitioner remained on leave and
since he did not appear before the medical Board, a
charge memo was issued and thereafter ultimately
by order dated 31.01.2000, the Petitioner was
discharged from service on the ground of
unauthorized absence. Assailing the same, the
Petitioner preferred an appeal before the IG, but the
same was rejected by order dated 22.05.2012 and
challenging the same, the Petitioner moved the
Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench,
Cuttack and on the abolition of the Tribunal the
docket was transferred to this Court and numbered
as W.P.(C) (OAC) No.4373 of 2012 and by order
dated 18.10.2022, while not entertaining with the
order of discharge passed by the Appellate
Authority this Court directed to consider the case of
the Petitioner for payment of "compassionate
allowance". The operative portion of the said order
is extracted hereunder:-
"Since the Petitioner after completing
more than 16 years of service was dismissed
from his service vide the order of discharge,
this Court is of the view that lenient view
shall be taken by the Opp. Parties while
considering the claim of the Petitioner for
such grant of compassionate allowance. The
Opp. Party No. 2 shall also take into
consideration the decision of the Hon‟ble
Apex Court reported in the case of
Mahendra Dutta Sharma Vs. Union of
India & ors. (2014) 11 SCC page 684".
Thereafter, in terms of the same, the
Petitioner filed an application before the
Superintendent of Police Signal, Odisha for grant of
such compassionate allowance vide Annexure-14,
since the same was not disposed of within the time
stipulated, a contempt petition was moved which
was disposed of by order dated 31.03.2023
(Annexure-15). Admittedly, by the impugned order
at Annexure-16, the prayer of the Petitioner for
grant of compassionate allowance having been
rejected, the present writ petition was filed.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
Petitioner, Mr. Rath that the order of rejection
suffers from gross non application of mind and is
against the underlying principle for enactment of
Rule 46 of OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 and is against
the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Mahinder
Dutt Sharma (Supra), as referred to in the earlier
order of this Court. Hence, the order is liable to be
set aside.
5. Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Das, ASC
on the other hand referring to the counter affidavit
filed, submits that there is no illegality in the
impugned order and since the case of the Petitioner
does not come under the category which qualifies
for "special consideration" and as such, his prayer
has been rejected and in doing so the authorities
have indicated the reasons as to why the Petitioner
is not similarly circumstanced with the Petitioner in
the reported case of Mahinder Dutt Sharma. Hence,
he seeks dismissal of the writ petition.
6. Before adverting to the rival contention, this
Court feels it appropriate to quote Rule 46 of OCS
(Pension) Rules, 1992 dealing with compassionate
allowance. The same reads as under:-
"46. Compassionate Allowance-
(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 (I) shall not be
less than the amount of minimum pension
admissible.
(3) On receipt of the order of the
competent authority removing an officer
from service for misconduct, insolvency, or
inefficiency the Head of Office, if he proposes
to grant compassionate allowance shall fill in
the application form for pension and send
the same to the Accountant-General for
necessary action after due concurrence of
Finance Department. The Head of Office shall
not wait for receiving the application from
the Officer."
7. On a bare perusal of the said Rules, it can be
seen that while formulating the same, the
legislature was conscious of the fact that they apply
to a Government Servant who is dismissed or
removed from his service and forfeited his pension
and gratuity. In Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 46 of OCS
(Pension) Rules, 1992, it has been stated that the
Head of Office shall not wait for receiving the
application from the Officer in deserving cases.
There cannot be a more patent expressive wisdom
of the legislature in drafting a benevolent provision.
8. So far as the guidelines for grant of
compassionate allowance is concerned, this Court
respectfully refers to the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of Mahinder Dutt Sharma
(Supra), wherein while cautioning that the
determination of a claim based under Rule 41 of the
Pension Rules, 1972 therein, is only illustrative, the
Apex Court has delineated 5 situations under which
such allowance can be denied. For convenience of
reference the same is extracted hereunder:-
"XXX XXX XXX
14. In our considered view, the determination
of a claim based under Rule 41 of the Pension
Rules, 1972, will necessarily have to be sieved
through an evaluation based on a series of
distinct considerations, some of which are
illustratively being expressed hereunder:-
14.1 (i) Was the act of the delinquent, which
resulted in the infliction of the punishment of
dismissal or removal from service, an act of
moral turpitude? An act of moral turpitude is an
act which has an inherent quality of baseness,
vileness or depravity with respect to a
concerned person‟s duty towards another, or to
the society in general. In criminal law, the
phrase is used generally to describe a conduct
which is contrary to community standards of
justice, honesty and good morals. Any
debauched, degenerate or evil behaviour would
fall in this classification.
14.2 (ii) Was the act of the delinquent, which
resulted in the infliction of the punishment of
dismissal or removal from service, an act of
dishonesty towards his employer? Such an
action of dishonesty would emerge from a
behaviour which is untrustworthy, deceitful and
insincere, resulting in prejudice to the interest
of the employer. This could emerge from an
unscrupulous, untrustworthy and crooked
behaviour, which aims at cheating the
employer. Such an act may or may not be
aimed at personal gains. It may be aimed at
benefiting a third party to the prejudice of the
employer.
14.3 (iii) Was the act of the delinquent, which
resulted in the infliction of the punishment of
dismissal or removal from service, an act
designed for personal gains from the employer?
This would involve acts of corruption, fraud or
personal profiteering, through impermissible
means by misusing the responsibility bestowed
in an employee by an employer. And would
include acts of double-dealing or racketeering,
or the like. Such an act may or may not be
aimed at causing loss to the employer. The
benefit of the delinquent could be at the peril
and prejudice of a third party.
14.4 (iv) Was the act of the delinquent, which
resulted in the infliction of the punishment of
dismissal or removal from service, aimed at
deliberately harming a third party interest?
Situations hereunder would emerge out of acts
of disservice causing damage, loss, prejudice or
even anguish to third parties, on account of
misuse of the employee‟s authority to control,
regulate or administer activities of third parties.
Actions of dealing with similar issues differently,
or in an iniquitous manner, by adopting double
standards or by foul play, would fall in this
category.
14.5 (v) Was the act of the delinquent, which
resulted in the infliction of the punishment of
dismissal or removal from service, otherwise
unacceptable, for the conferment of the benefits
flowing out of Rule 41 of the Pension Rules,
1972? Illustratively, any action which is
considered as depraved, perverted, wicked,
treacherous or the like, as would disentitle an
employee for such compassionate
consideration.
XXX XXX XXX"
Hence, the case at hand has to be examined
on the touchstone of the principles as laid down in
the case Mahinder Dutt Sharma (Supra).
9. The ground of discharge of the Petitioner was
only on account of unauthorized absence. And, if
seen factually, it is worth noting that in Mahinder
Dutt Sharma (Supra), the service record of the
Petitioner therein has been dealt with in paragraph-
10 of the said judgment of the Apex Court. The
same is quoted hereunder:-
"10. By an order dated 25.4.2005, the
Deputy Commissioner of Police, IInd
Battalion, Delhi Armed Police, Delhi, rejected
the prayer made by the appellant for the
grant of compassionate allowance. The
operative part of the order dated 25.4.2005,
rejecting the appellant‟s claim for
compassionate allowance is being extracted
hereunder:-
"4. As regards your claim for compassionate
allowance, you do not have unblemished
record because you have been found absent
on several occasions and your period was
treated as „Leave Without Pay‟. You were
also censured during the tenure of your
service and certain other punishments also
exist in your service record. Hence due to
indifferent service record and the facts of the
case no compassionate allowance can be
granted."
10. In the memorandum of appeal the Petitioner
has also mentioned about his service career which
reads as under:-
"Besides this throughout my service
career I have got 5 rewards (subject to
verification of the Service Book), and one
good service mark, (with cash award of Rs.
50/- from DIG of Police Technical), one
commendation from GRP establishment
Cuttack on 13.9.1985"
This above has not been controverted.
11. On perusal of the impugned order of
rejection at Annexure-16, it is seen that the special
allowance was denied to the Petitioner inter alia on
the ground that he had rendered only 16 years of
service of which qualifying service was only 12
years 8 months and 29 days, unlike in the case of
Mahinder Dutt Sharma (Supra), who had
rendered 25 years of service which is "pensionable".
And, reversion of the Petitioner has also weighed
with the authorities and it is also said that the
Petitioner has not suffered any tragedy like
Mahinder Dutt Sharma, Petitioner in the reported
case.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for the Petitioner
submits that the personal misery of the Petitioner
has been outlined in the memorandum of appeal.
Hence, it cannot be said that the Petitioner did not
face the challenges unlike the Petitioner in the
reported case before the Apex Court.
13. In rejecting the prayer for compassionate
allowance by the impugned order, the authority
failed to notice as the very heading of the rule
indicates that the same is compassionate allowance
and so far as the earlier conduct of the Petitioner
during service is inconsequential and more so when
on analysis of the materials on record, does not fall
within the parameter as fixed by the Apex Court to
disentitle the Petitioner to claim compassionate
allowance. It does not augur well for a model
employer to compare the degree of deprivation
suffered by an incumbent while considering the
claim for compassionate allowance.
14. In fact, this Court is of the considered view
that if the service record of the present Petitioner is
compared with that of the Petitioner before the
Apex Court, it cannot be said that the Petitioner has
worse record.
15. In such view of the matter, considering the
submissions as made and the materials on record
and evaluating the same on the touchstone of the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Mahinder Dutt Sharma (Supra), while being
conscious of the fact that the same is not illustrative
as rightly cautioned by the Apex Court, this Court is
persuaded to hold that the impugned order at
Annexure-16 rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner
for compassionate allowance, is not sustainable.
Accordingly, Anneuxre-16 is set aside.
16. The authorities are directed to grant such
compassionate allowance in terms of Rule 46 of
OCS (Pension) Rules within a period of four months
from the date of receipt/production of copy of this
judgment.
17. Before parting with the case, this Court
places on record its appreciation for the valuable
and dispassionate assistance rendered by the
learned Additional Standing Counsel, Mr. S.P. Das in
analysing the provisions of compassionate
allowance.
18. The writ petition thus stands disposed of. No
costs.
(V. Narasingh)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 07th April, 2025/Ayesha
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
