1984 INSC 0255
                                                       Hussaini

                                                           Vs

                 Hon. Chief Justice of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and Others

                                          Civil Appeal No. 4041 of 1984

                                                      24.09.1984

                                        (D. A. Desai, Ranganath Misra JJ)

                                                        ORDER

1. Special leave granted.

2. We heard Mrs J. S. Bali, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs Shobha Dikshit, learned
counsel for the respondents. Appellant who was serving as a safai Jamadar was dismissed from the
service by the Registrar of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. His writ petition having been
dismissed, he has filed this appeal, by special leave.

3. It appears that appellant joined service as a sweeper in the High Court on April 25, 1958. By an
order dated April 28, 1978 he was placed under suspension and therefore he was dismissed from
service on November 30, 1978. At the time of dismissal he had rendered service for over 20 years.
As appellant was dismissed from service he has been denied retiral benefits such as pension,
provident fund and gratuity to which he would be entitled if he is compulsorily retired from service
as and by way of the punishment. We suggested to Mrs. Shobha Dikshit, learned counsel for the
respondents to enquire whether any retiral or terminal benefit can be given to the appellant on the
basis that he has rendered service for 20 years. The response is positive. However, Mrs Shobha
Dikshit, learned counsel for the respondents to enquire whether any retiral or terminal benefit can be
given to the appellant on the basis that the he has rendered service for 20 years. The response is
positive. However, Mrs Shobha Dikshit, learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that in law
appellant would not be entitled to any retirement benefit in view of the fact that he is dismissed
from the service by way of the punishment.

4. Appellant was a low paid safai Jamadar. We do not propose to minimise the gravity of his
misconduct for which the High Court though fit to the impose maximum punishment of dismissal
from service simultaneously denying him all retiral benefits. Without the in any manner detracting
from the view taken by the High Court we are of the opinion that there is some scope for the taking
a little lenient view the matter of punishment awarded to the appellant. The lenience if at all would
render the post-dismissal life of the low paid employee a little tolerable and keep him away from the
penury and destitution.

5. How much is the cushion or the elbow room in the matter of punishment ? Appellant cannot be
reinstated in service. He must remain out of his last employment. Therefore the only course open to
us is to convert the order of punishment into one of compulsory retirement so that while denying
service to the appellant he will be ensured retrial benefits.

6. We accordingly allow the appeal, convert the order of dismissal into one of compulsory
retirement. Consequently the respondent shall pay Rs. 150 p.m. towards pension to the appellant
from November 30, 1978. The amount of pension is worked out by the respondents on a suggestion
made by the Court. The arrears of pension shall be paid within the two months from today and the
pension payment order shall be issued within the same time for drawing the pension regularly from
month to month. Provident fund and gratuity shall be paid if admissible to the appellant on the same
computation. The appeal is allowed to that extent only. There will be no order as to costs.

</html