2025:JHHC:28209 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 3110 of 2021 ------ Janardan Kumar, C/o Madhavi Kumari, resident of F-612, F Block, City Palace, Shere Punjab Chowk, Dindi Basti, Ward No. 14, Adityapur-1, Jamshedpur, P.O and P.S- Adityapur, District Seraikela-Kharsawan. … Petitioner(s) Versus Life Insurance Corporation of India through its Zonal Manager, having its registered office at Jeevandeep, Exhibition Road, Patna, P.O Patna, GOP, P.S. Gandhi Maidan, District- Patna. … Respondent(s) WITH W.P.(S) No. 5623 of 2024 ------ Janardan Kumar, son of late Basudeo Prasad Roy, resident of F-612, F Block, City Palace, Shere Punjab Chowk, Dindi Basti, Ward No. 14, Adityapur-1, Jamshedpur, P.O and P.S- Adityapur, District Seraikela-Kharsawan. … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. Life Insurance Corporation of India through its Zonal Manager, having its registered office at Jeevandeep, Exhibition Road, Patna, P.O and P.S.- Gandhi Maidan, Patna- 80001. 2. the Life Insurance Corporation of India through its Chairperson/Chairman, having its registered office at Life Insurance Corporation of India “Yogakshema” , Central Office, Jeevan Bima Marg, P.O New Yogakshema Sub Post Office, P.S. Church Gate, Mumbai- 400 021. 3. Life Insurance Corporation of India through its Sr. Divisional manager, having its registered office at Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Jeevan Prakash Building, P.O and P.S. Bistupur, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand 831 001. … Respondent(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the petitioner(s): M/s Rajendra Krishna & Pratyush Shounikya, Advocates For Respondent(s): Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate. ------ WP(S) No. 3110 of 2021 17/15.09.2025: Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 25th June 2021 passed by the Zonal manager (Disciplinary Authority) whereby, the petitioner has been dismissed from service in terms of Regulation 39(1)(J) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960, as amended up to 19.10.2020. 3. The final order of dismissal is at Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The charge against the petitioner is that he has been convicted by the learned Special Judge, CBI Court No. III at Lucknow in connection with Criminal Case No. 5/2010, arising out of RC No. 0062011A0018, in which the allegation against the petitioner is that he was caught red handed while he 2. was taking illegal gratification/bribe for providing technical clearance of Generator bill of Branch office situated in LIC office by the complainant Shri Arvind Kumar Srivastav for final payment. After the conviction of the petitioner, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow Bench being Cr. Appeal No. 2072 of 2018. In the said case, the sentence of the appellant was suspended and he is on bail. The fact remains that the petitioner is still a convict. 4. Since the petitioner has already been convicted in a criminal case and the ground of dismissal is conviction in criminal case, I find no illegality in the impugned order by which, the petitioner has been dismissed. 5. In the event, ultimately if the petitioner succeeds in the criminal appeal, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate authority by filing appropriate application, which will be considered as per law. 6. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of. W.P.(S) No. 5623 of 2024 Heard the parties. 2. By filing this petition, the petitioner prays to quash letter dated 3.1.2024, whereby the Regional Manager (P&IR), rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate allowance on the ground that the same does not deserve any special consideration as the petitioner has enough source of income. 3. The facts are admitted in this case. The petitioner was an employee of LIC of India. The charge against the petitioner is that he has been convicted by the learned Special Judge, CBI Court No. III at Lucknow in connection with Criminal Case No. 5/2010, arising out of RC No. 0062011A0018, in which the allegation against the petitioner is that he was caught red handed while he was taking illegal gratification/bribe for providing technical clearance of Generator bill of Branch office situated in LIC office by the complainant Shri Arvind Kumar Srivastav for final payment. After the conviction of the petitioner, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow Bench being Cr. Appeal No. 2072 of 2018. In the said case, the sentence of the appellant was suspended and he is on bail. The fact remains that the petitioner is still a convict. Since the petitioner is convict in a criminal case involving moral turpitude, he was dismissed from service. 3. 4. Be it noted that the order of dismissal was challenged in WPS No. 3110 of 2021 before this Court which was not interfered with at present. However, liberty has been given to the petitioner to approach the authority concerned, if he is acquitted. 5. Since the petitioner was dismissed, he has filed an application for grant of compassionate allowance under the Life Insurance Corporation of India Employee Pension Rules, 1995, which came into force on 1st November, 1993. Rule 33 of the Said Rules provides for compassionate allowance. Sub-rule(1) of the said Rules provides for entitlement, which provides that if an employee is dismissed or removed or compulsorily retired or terminated from service on or after the 1st November, 1993, he may be given the benefit of compassionate allowance. The amount the employee will be entitled to receive, should not exceed two third of the admissible pension, which he would have received on the basis of qualifying service rendered up to the date of his dismissal. Further Sub-Rule (2) provides that the said allowance shall not be less than the amount of minimum pension payable under Rule 36 of the Rules. Rules 33 and 36 of the LIC Employee Pension Rule, 1995 reads as under:- “33. Compassionate Allowance (1) An employee, who is dismissed or removed or compulsorily retired or terminated from service, shall forfeit his pension : Provided that the authority competent to dismiss or remove or compulsorily retire or terminate him from service may, if (i) such dismissal, removal, compulsory retirement or termination is on or after the 1st day of November, 1993; and (ii) the case is deserving of special consideration, sanction a compassionate allowance not exceeding two- thirds of the pension which would have been admissible to him on the basis of the qualifying service rendered upto the date of his dismissal, removal, compulsory retirement or termination. (2) The compassionate allowance sanctioned under the proviso to sub-rule (1) shall not be less than the amount of the minimum pension payable under rule 36 of these rules.” 36. **Minimum pension -The amount of minimum pension shall be, (a) rupees three hundred and seventy five per month in respect of an employee, belonging to Class-III or Class- IV, who had retired or died before 1st August,1992 and in respect of employee belonging to Class-I or Class-II, who had retired or died before 1st day of April, 1993. (b) rupees seven hundred and twenty per month in respect of an employee belonging to Class-III or Class- 4. IV, who had retired or died on or after 1st August, 1992, and in respect of an employee belonging to Class-I or Class-II, who had retired or died on or after 1st April, 1993. ***(c) rupees 1,100/- per month in respect of employees belonging to Class-I, Class-II, Class-III and Class-IV, who have retired or died on or after the first day of August, 1997; ***(d) in case of any wage revision in future the amount of minimum pension payable to an employee shall be determined by the Corporation corresponding to the index to which the scale is linked. (The Corporation has determined that the amount of minimum pension shall be rupees 1480/per month in respect of employees belonging to Class-I, Class-II, Class-III and Class-IV, who have retired or died on or after the first day of August, 2002); 6. After perusal of the Rules, I find that there are two conditions, if fulfilled, the employee is entitled for the benefits. The first condition is that such dismissal, removal, compulsory retirement or termination should be on or after the 1st day of November, 1993. In this case the dismissal of the petitioner is dated 25.6.2021, which is after the cut off date i.e. 1st November, 1993, thus the petitioner qualifies the first condition. 7. The second condition is that the case should deserve special consideration. In the entire rules, there is nothing to suggest that what would amount to be a “Special Consideration”. The definition clause of the said Rule is Rule 2. The phrase “Special Consideration” has not been defined there nor in any other clause of the Rules. Thus what would be the “Special Consideration” is absolutely a subjective term open to different interpretations. 8. In this case, admittedly, the petitioner has lost his job as he has been dismissed from service. He has filed an application for grant of the benefit on the ground that he is the only earning member of the family and the other members of the family are dependent upon him. He is in acute financial problems and is fighting for survival. It has been further submitted that the petitioner has worked for 25 years and in his career has never been reprimanded also. On this ground, the case of the petitioner be considered as special case in terms of the Rules. His application was placed before the Authority and the same was rejected. The rejection order has been communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 3.1.2024 i.e. the impugned order. 9. After going through the impugned order, I find that the representation of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that his case 5. does not deserve for “Special Consideration” as enough source of income is there. (Emphasis supplied by this Court) 10. There is nothing in the impugned order or in the record which suggests what were the materials before the competent authority to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner has “sufficient source of income”. There is nothing on record that after the petitioner has been dismissed, he has been gainfully employed in any other organization. There is no evidence that the petitioner has enough source of income nor there is reason to arrive at the said conclusion. Thus the impugned order is not only cryptic but it can be terms to be perverse. Even in the counter affidavit there is no whisper as to why the Authority has arrived at a conclusion that there is sufficient source of income of the petitioner, which requires non- consideration of the case of the petitioner for “special consideration”. 11. Considering what has been discussed above and since the order is perverse, the impugned order dated 3.1.2024 (Annexure- 3 to this petition) as contained in Reference No. 10426 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Authority of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Limited to re-consider the case of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order in terms of Rules/Scheme within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy this order after giving one opportunity to the petitioner. 12. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition also stands disposed of. 15th September, 2025 Anu/-Cp2. (ANANDA SEN, J.)