Direction to Government to consider grant of Retiring Pension following High Court recommendation for Compassionate Pension.

The petitioner is the wife of a deceased judicial officer who was compulsorily retired by the High Court on grounds of inefficiency

Because the husband had not completed the qualifying term of service to be entitled to a regular retiring pension, the High Court recommended to the State Government that he be granted a "Compassionate Pension"

The petitioner challenged a communication dated 01.08.2017, which rejected her claim for regular pension and other benefits

She sought a direction for the grant of "Retiring Pension" with effect from 20.05.2009, including the condonation of any deficiency in the qualifying service period

As of the hearing, the High Court’s recommendation for compassionate pension remained pending with the Government due to pending clarifications

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim a regular "Retiring Pension" for her husband, by condoning deficiencies in qualifying service, despite his compulsory retirement for inefficiency

2. Whether the State Government is obligated to act upon the High Court’s recommendation for the grant of "Compassionate Pension"

The court's decision is grounded in the administrative discretion of the State Government, acting on the High Court's recommendation, regarding pensionary benefits for judicial officers retired for inefficiency

The court acknowledged the principle that where an officer is retired compulsorily without "negative reasons" (other than inefficiency), compassionate pension may be considered even if the minimum qualifying service for regular pension is not met

The court further applied procedural rules allowing for the condonation of service deficiencies to ensure eligibility for pensionary benefits

The Court observed that the High Court had already recommended a compassionate pension, which implied that no grave misconduct prohibited such a benefit despite the officer's inefficiency

During the proceedings, the petitioner expressed a desire to submit a fresh representation for a full "Retiring Pension" instead of the "Compassionate Pension," offering to provide materials to justify the condonation of any service deficiency

The Court found it appropriate to allow this representation to be forwarded to the State Government, noting that since a recommendation for a compassionate pension was already on record, the Government must consider the claims "sympathetically"

The Court did not decide the merits of the eligibility but channeled the grievance back to the executive for a time-bound decision

The Court directed the State Government to consider this representation, as well as the prior recommendation for "Compassionate Pension," within eight weeks thereafter

The Court specifically highlighted that the Government should consider the claim for compassionate pension sympathetically