Long service and absence of grave misconduct can warrant compassionate pension despite compulsory retirement.

The respondent joined the State service as a Store Keeper in 1975 and was promoted to a Class-II post in 1981.

By order dated 1 July 1994, he was reverted to a Class-III post for three years and was required to report at Bhuj.

He did not join the reverted post, citing personal and family circumstances, including his mother’s illness and his children’s education.

A show-cause notice and charge-sheet followed, but he did not submit a reply.

Despite directions issued after his earlier proceedings before the High Court, he continued not to report at Bhuj.

He was initially removed from service on 13 February 1997; the Tribunal set aside that order and directed a fresh opportunity.

Upon departmental inquiry, the charges of disobedience and unauthorised absence were found proved, and the disciplinary authority imposed compulsory retirement.

The respondent subsequently sought compassionate pension.

The State rejected the request, relying, inter alia, on the employment of his spouse and son and his own work as a pujari.

The learned Single Judge held that the rejection was unsustainable, found that the respondent’s service record was overall satisfactory, and directed payment of compassionate pension equivalent to two-thirds of the normal pension, initially from the date of compulsory retirement.

The State challenged that order by the present Letters Patent Appeal.

During the appeal, the respondent undertook not to claim arrears from 16 October 2001 and agreed to receive compassionate pension only from the date of the appellate order.

Whether an employee compulsorily retired for proved disobedience and unauthorised absence could nevertheless be granted compassionate pension under the applicable pension framework

Whether the respondent’s long service of more than 22 years and the absence of serious financial or moral misconduct justified treating his case as deserving “special consideration” for compassionate pension

Whether the award of compassionate pension should operate retrospectively from the date of compulsory retirement or prospectively from the date of the appellate judgment, in view of the respondent’s undertaking

The Court applied the principle governing compassionate pension, namely that an employee compulsorily retired as a penalty is not ordinarily entitled to normal pension as of right, but may be granted compassionate pension where the circumstances of the case warrant special consideration.

The Court treated long and satisfactory service, the nature of the misconduct, and the absence of serious allegations such as misappropriation as relevant considerations in determining whether compassionate pension should be granted.

No specific statutory provision, rule number, or judicial precedent was expressly cited in the judgment.

The Court accepted that the respondent had not challenged the order of compulsory retirement and that his misconduct—failure to report at the reverted posting and unauthorised absence—had been established in departmental proceedings.

However, it held that compulsory retirement did not automatically foreclose consideration for compassionate pension.

The respondent had rendered more than 22 years of service and had previously been promoted to Class-II rank; the misconduct did not involve misappropriation or comparable serious wrongdoing, but principally consisted of refusal to join the reverted Class-III post.

In these peculiar circumstances, the State’s conclusion that the case did not merit special consideration was held unjustified.

The Court also took into account the respondent’s advanced age and his undertaking to waive pension arrears from 2001, which substantially reduced any financial prejudice to the State.

However, in light of the respondent’s undertaking not to claim arrears from 2001, the Court modified the effective date and directed that compassionate pension be paid from 1 August 2026, rather than from the earlier date of compulsory retirement.