P. Rukmani Amma vs State of Kerala and Others

C.S. Rajan, J.—The Petitioner is the widow of late Ramarajan Nair, who was the Sub Inspector of Police. Disciplinary action was taken against him and he was dismissed from service. The Petitioner''s husband was granted compassionate allowance at the rate of Rs. 372 per month with effect from 4th October 1993. But the Petitioner''s husband died on 1st March 1994. Therefore the amount could not be paid to him. The prayer in the Original Petition is to pay the above compassionate allowance to the Petitioner and also the other benefits due to her deceased husband. There is also a prayer to continue to pay compassionate allowance to the Petitioner.

The argument put forward by Sri N. Viswanatha Iyer, learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that compassionate allowance is also part of the pension and therefore as the legal representative of the deceased person, the Petitioner is entitled to get the above amount considering it as part of the pension. The Government opposed the above argument.

Sri Jayasankar, learned Government Pleader invited my attention to the various Rules contained in Part III of the K.S.R. It is Rule 5 of Part III K.S.R. which deals with compassionate allowance. Rule 5 reads as follows:

Misconduct or inefficiency.-(a) No pension may be granted to an employee dismissed or removed for misconduct, insolvency or inefficiency, but to employees so dismissed or removed, compassionate allowances may be granted when they are deserving of special consideration, provided that the allowances granted to any employee shall not exceed two-thirds of the pension which would have been admissible to him if he had retired on the date of dismissal or removal.

An employee who was dismissed or removed from service is not entitled to get pension. Instead of that, compassionate allowance may be granted to him in deserving cases. Rule 32 of Part III K.S.R. deals with the classifications of pensions which are as follows:

(a) Compensation pensions.

(b) Invalid pensions.

(c) Superannuation pension.

(d) Retiring pensions.

Compassionate allowance is not one among them. Rule 57 deals with the amount of pension that may be granted to a pensioner. According to Note 1 of Rule 57, the term ''pension'' includes gratuity, death-cum-retirement gratuity and family pension also. It does not mention the compassionate allowance. But Note 2 specifically mentions that the grant of compassionate allowance being an ''act of grace'', the grant of any further concession in the shape of rounding fraction of a year will not be allowed. Rules 58 says that pension should be fixed in whole rupees, fraction if any, in the calculation of pension according to the rules being rounded off to the next higher rupee. Note to Rule 58 says that the term ''pension'' includes gratuity, death-cum-retirement gratuity; compassionate allowance and family pension also. Rule 80 of Part III, K.S.R. which deals with non-contributory family pension also does not mention about the compassionate allowance. Rule 90(3) says that contributory family pension will be admissible in case of death after retirement, if the retired employee is in receipt of compensation, invalid, retiring or superannuation pension or pension granted on compulsory retirement by way of penalty, at the time of his death. There also compassionate allowance is conspicuously absent.

In view of these provisions contained in Part III of K.S.R., it is impossible to stretch the ambit of the compassionate allowance to mean that it is part of the pension. Since compassionate allowance itself is termed as an ''act of grace'', it can never partake the character of a pension.

If the argument of the Petitioner is accepted, the order of dismissal or removal will have no deterrent consequence. If a dismissed or removed employee also is eligible to receive pension, then it ceases to be a punishment. That is why the punishment of compulsory retirement is also included as an item of major punishment. Thus, by any stretch of imagination it can be said that compassionate allowance granted to a person who was dismissed or removed from service as a concession can be termed as a part of pension. Therefore the above argument is only to be rejected.

In this case compassionate allowance was sanctioned to the Petitioner''s husband while he was alive with effect from 4th October 1993 by order dated 10th January 1995. The Petitioner''s husband died on 1st March 1994. The above amount due to the Petitioner''s husband as sanctioned by the Government must be paid to the Petitioner if she proves that she is the legal heir of her deceased husband. No other amount can be claimed by the Petitioner in this respect.

Original Petition is disposed of as above.