Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010133832025 2026:GAU-AS:10138 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3808/2025 ANJAN KUMAR DAS SON OF SURENDRA CH. DAS, VILLAGE- DEEP APARTMENT, LOCHAN BAIRAGI ROAD, SILCHAR, DIST- CACHAR, ASSAM, PRESENT ADDRESS- BASISTHA NAGAR, KALIBARI ROAD, BANGADALI BASTI, BYE LANE-7, HOUSE NO. 8, P.O.- BASISTHA, GUWAHATI-781029, DIST- KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM VERSUS LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS. TO BE REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, LIC OF INDIA, YOKAKSHEMA ZEEVAN BIMA MARG, P.B. NO. 19953, MUMBAI- 400021, MAHARASHTRA 2:ZONAL MANAGER LIC OF INDIA EASTERN ZONAL OFFICE C.R. AVENUE HINDUSTAN BUILDING KOLKATA WEST BENGAL PIN-700072 3:THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER LIC OF INDIA SILCHAR DIVISIONAL OFFICE ZEEVAN PRAKASH MEHERPUR SILCHAR CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788015 4:THE ENQUIRY OFFICER Page No.# 2/8 MANAGER F AND A SR NO. 33047 LIC OF INDIA SILCHAR DIVISIONAL OFFICE SILCHAR CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788015 5:THE CHAIRMAN LIC OF INDIA YOYAKSHEME ZEEVAN BIMA MARG P.B NO. 19953 MUMBAI-40002 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A R BHUYAN, S LASKAR,MR N A MAZARBHUIYA,MR M KHAN,MR N Z CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : MR S NATH(R-1 TO 5), MS. R BHARALI(R-1 TO 5) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 21.07.2026 Heard Mr. A. R. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. S. Laskar, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Nath, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Respondents i.e. Respondent Nos.1 to 5. 2. The petitioner in the present writ petition has presented a challenge to an order dated 07.05.2025, by which his prayer for being granted compassionate allowances after being imposed with a penalty of removal from service came to be rejected. Page No.# 3/8 3. The petitioner, herein, in pursuance to a Departmental proceeding instituted against him, was imposed with the penalty of removal from service. The said penalty was assailed by the petitioner before a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and on dismissal of the writ petition, the matter was carried before the Division Bench. The Division Bench had also dismissed the writ appeal filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner has assailed the same before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein, the Special Leave Petition so filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed. The penalty imposed upon the petitioner of removal from service, accordingly, stood affirmed. The petitioner thereafter, again approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition being WP(C).No.1349/2023, praying for a direction upon the Respondent Authorities for authorizing to him a compassionate allowance in terms of the proviso to Rule 33(1) of the LIC (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995. The Respondent Authorities in pursuance to the said directions passed by this Court, considered the matter and vide a speaking order dated 07.05.2025, proceeded to reject the claim made by the petitioner. Being aggrieved the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition. 4. Mr. A. R. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner, at the outset by referring to the proviso (ii) to Rule 33(1) of the Page No.# 4/8 Rules of 1995, has submitted that an employee who has been imposed with the penalty of dismissal/removal/compulsory retirement or terminated from his service, the authority empowered to impose upon the employee, the penalty of dismissal/removal/compulsory retirement or terminate his such services, if the case is deserving of special consideration, may sanction a compassionate allowance at the rate so set out in the provisions of Rule 33 to such employee. 5. Mr. A. R. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel, for the petitioner, submits that the competent authority while considering an application for grant of compassionate allowance, is to examine as to whether the case of the ex- employee, deserved a special consideration on the basis of the materials available on record. Mr. Bhuyan, by referring to the speaking order dated 07.05.2025, submits that the competent authority of the Corporation after noticing the facts leading to the imposition of the penalty of removal from service upon the petitioner as well as the litigational history involved, rejected the claim of the petitioner without spelling out as to why the case of the petitioner did not merit a special consideration in terms of the proviso to Rule 33 (1) of the Rules of 1995. 6. Mr. A. R. Bhuyan, submits that the grant of compassionate allowance being so mandated to be extended to persons imposed with the penalty of dismissal/removal/compulsory retirement or termination from services, such Page No.# 5/8 grant would not be permissible to be rejected only noticing the fact of imposition of such penalty. He submits that the Respondent Authorities were required to examine the claim made by the petitioner for being authorized compassionate allowance by taking into consideration the circumstances he found himself to be in, after termination of his employment as well as the misconduct alleged and proved against him. Mr. A. R. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel, submits that such consideration is not found to have been made in the speaking order dated 07.05.2025. 7. Mr. S. Nath, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents has fairly submitted that the consideration as mandated under the proviso to Rule 33 (1) of the Rules of 1995, is not found to have been extended to the petitioner vide the speaking order dated 07.05.2025. He submits that the Respondent Authorities ought to have considered the claim of the petitioner for being authorized compassionate allowances, after being imposed with the penalty of removal from service, by taking into consideration the circumstances he found himself in as well as the misconduct alleged and proved against him. Mr. Nath, further submits that the matter can be remanded back to the authorities of the Corporation for a fresh consideration in the matter within a time frame. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials coming on record. Page No.# 6/8 9. The provisions of Rule 33 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995, being relevant is extracted, hereinbelow; “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.” 10. A perusal of the proviso to Rule 33 (1) would go to reveal that while evaluating the claim of a dismissed/removed employee for grant of compassionate allowance, the proviso more particularly clause (ii) thereof, postulates a window of hope by prescribing …”… the case is deserving of special consideration”. It is not possible to lay down all permissible circumstances, wherein, the provisions of clause (ii) of the proviso to Rule 33 (1) can be applied. However, what is relevant to be noticed from the provisions of Rule 33, is that mere imposition of a penalty of dismissal/removal from service would not bar the consideration of the case Page No.# 7/8 of such delinquent for being extended with a benefit of payment of compassionate allowance. 11. This Court on a due consideration of provisions of the proviso to Rule 33 (1) of the Rules of 1995, finds that the term “deserving of special consideration” would mean a consideration being made by the competent authority of the delinquency leveled and proved against the punished employee as well as the circumstances he finds himself to be in after being imposed with the penalty of dismissal/removal. Accordingly, the authority competent to exercise the power under the proviso to Rule 33 (1), must extend a due consideration to all the circumstances arising in the matter including the delinquency leveled and proved against the petitioner as well as the circumstances he finds himself after being left with no means of livelihood, on being imposed with a penalty of dismissal/removal etc. 12. In the above view of the matter, this Court on a perusal of the speaking order dated 07.05.2025, is in agreement with the learned counsel for the parties, that the authority considering the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate allowance had not examined the matter in the light of clause (ii) of the proviso to Rule 33 (1) of the Rules of 1995. There was no examination of the factor “the case is deserving special consideration” by the competent authority. This Court finds that the claim of the petitioner was rejected only on the ground that he was imposed with the penalty of Page No.# 8/8 removal from service, which in the considered view of this Court is not permissible. Accordingly, the speaking order dated 07.05.2025, stands set aside. 13. In view of the above discussion, the competent authority of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, is directed to give a fresh consideration to the claim of the petitioner for being authorized compassionate allowance, after being imposed with a penalty of removal from service. The competent authority of the Corporation while considering the said claim of the petitioner, shall keep in view, the nature of the delinquency alleged and proved against the petitioner as well as the circumstances the petitioner has found himself to be in after cessation of his employment, on being imposed with a penalty of removal from his service. The said consideration be made and a speaking order be issued within a period of 03 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order along with representation from the petitioner, herein. 14. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant