IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.23766 of 2015 CNR No.ODHC010083472015 Ananta Charan Mishra …. Petitioner Mr. P.K. Mohapatra, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and Others …. Opp. Parties Mr. P.K. Sahoo, ASC Mr. A. Tripathy, Advocate for the Corporation CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No ORDER 13.08.2026 17. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. Even though the present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging the order passed under Annexure-7 as well as under Annexure-13, but in course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly contended that taking into account the nature of claim raised before this Court in W.P.(C) No.22041 of 2014, challenge made to Annexure-7 be treated as not pressed. 4. It is contended that the petitioner entered into service under the erstwhile State Transport Service, where he joined on 03.09.1969. Subsequently, petitioner became an employee of Odisha State Road Transport Corporation from the year 1981. 4.1. It is contended that while continuing as such under OSRTC, a proceeding was initiated against him vide Charge Memo dated 07.04.2001 under Annexure-5. In the said proceeding, petitioner without proper appreciation of the reply so made, was imposed with the punishment of termination vide order dated 26.11.2001 under Annexure- 7 and the unauthorized absence w.e.f. 08.11.2000 to 26.11.2001 was treated as break of service. 4.2. It is contended that appeal preferred against such order was also rejected by Opp. Party No.2. Not only that Mercy Petition filed by the petitioner before Opp. Party No.2 was also rejected. It is contended that finding no alternative and the fact that petitioner prior to his termination had rendered service for more than 31 years and he was due to retire on 31.08.2002 on attaining the age of superannuation, petitioner raised a claim for grant of Compassionate Allowance in terms of the provisions contained under Rule-46 of the OCS(Pension) Rules, 1992 (in short “Rules, 1992”). Rule-46 of the Rules reads as follows:- “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.” 4.3. It is further contended that this Court while disposing W.P.(C) No.22041 of 2014, directed for consideration of the petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of Compassionate Allowance as provided under Rule-46 of the Rules. However, such claim of the petitioner was also rejected vide the impugned order dated 09.06.2015 under Annexure-13. 4.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the Proceeding was initiated only on the ground of unauthorised absence of the petitioner for certain period and the recovery so held against the petitioner was never determined in accordance with law, petitioner could not have been terminated from his services, so terminated vide order dated 26.11.2001 under Annexure-7. 4.5. It is also contended that since petitioner rendered services for around 31 years and he was due to retire on 31.08.2002, Opp. Party No.1 in terms of the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.22041 of 2014, should have sanctioned Compassionate Allowances in favour of the petitioner for his survival. But without proper appreciation and the fact that petitioner is a terminated employee, rejected such claim vide the impugned order dated 09.06.2015 under Annexure-13. 4.6. It is accordingly contended that with quashing of the impugned order, Opp. Party No.1 be directed to sanction Compassionate Allowance in favour of the petitioner in terms of the provisions contained under Rule-46 of the Rules, 1992. 5. Mr. A. Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation on the other hand contended that since petitioner while continuing under the Corporation, remained on unauthorised absence w.e.f. 08.11.2000, the Proceeding was initiated against him vide Charge Memo dated 07.04.2001. In the said proceeding, petitioner when never filed any reply to the charges, the Disciplinary Authority-Opp. Party No.4 while disposing the Proceeding, imposed the punishment of termination vide order dated 26.11.2001 under Annexure-7. Appeal as well as Mercy Petition filed against such order was also rejected by Opp. Party No.2. 5.1. It is however fairly contended that by the time the petitioner was terminated from his services, he had already rendered services for around 31 years and his date of retirement was 31.08.2002. 6. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that since petitioner was terminated from his services while continuing under the Corporation and his Appeal as well as Mercy Petition was rejected by Opp. Party No.2, petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of Compassionate Allowance and the same has been rightly rejected vide the impugned order dated 09.06.2015 under Annexure-13. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submission made, it is found that petitioner entered into service on 03.09.1969 in the erstwhile State Transport Service. While so continuing, petitioner became an employee of the Corporation from the year 1981. As found from the record, while so continuing under the Corporation, on the ground of unauthorised absence from duty w.e.f. 08.11.2000, a Proceeding in question was initiated vide Charge Memo dated 07.04.2001 under Annexure-5. 7.1. In the said proceeding, petitioner was terminated from his services vide order dated 26.11.2001 under Annexure-7. It is not disputed that Appeal and Mercy Petition filed against such order was also rejected by the Opp. Party-Corporation. 7.2. However, claim of the petitioner to get the benefit of Compassionate Allowance being an erstwhile employee of a State Transport Service, was rejected by Opp. Party No.1 vide the impugned order dated 09.06.2015 under Annexure-13, on the ground that petitioner has been terminated vide order dated 05.10.2001 and Appeal as well as Mercy Petition filed against such order has been rejected by Opp. Party No.2. 7.3. Placing reliance on the provisions contained under Rule-46 of the Rules, 1992, it is the view of this Court such Compassionate Allowance can be given in favour of a terminated employee on special consideration. 7.4. However, as found from the impugned order, no such consideration has been made while rejecting petitioner’s claim. Since petitioner after rendering more than 31 years of service was terminated from his services by the authorities of OSRTC only on the ground that he remained unauthorised absence w.e.f. 08.01.2000 by initiating a proceeding on 07.04.2001 and there is no document available in the record that the recoverable amount was determined in accordance with law and which was also not a charge, this Court is of the view that ground on which petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of Compassionate Allowance has been rejected, is not sustainable. 7.5. Therefore, while quashing order dated 09.06.2015 so passed by Opp. Party No.1 under Annexure-13, this Court directs the O.P. No.1 to sanction Compassionate Allowance in favour of the petitioner as due and admissible from the date of his entitlement and release the same in his favour. This Court directs Opp. Party No.1 to comply the direction within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of this order. 8. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev