Judgment :- Ext.P-9 order is under challenge. Petitioner was formerly working as Junior Assistant in the Kerala State Electricity Board. He was dismissed from service on 20-2-1989. The order of dismissal was passed taking note of the conviction and sentence passed by the Criminal Court. Offences alleged against the petitioner were grave and involving moral turpitude. He suffered the punishment. When he was released from jail on the expiry of the period of imprisonment, he preferred an application before the respondent-Board requesting that he may be sanctioned compassionate allowance. Admittedly, and rightly too, petitioner was not sanctioned any pensionary benefits, because a dismissed employee is not entitled for any retirement benefits. The application was considered by the respondent-Board and Ext.P-9 order was passed by the 2nd respondent holding that compassionate allowance cannot be granted to a person like the petitioner who committed grave offences and on conviction by the competent Criminal Court, had suffered imprisonment also. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext. P-9 has been passed without reference to the relevant statutory provision as also the purpose for which provision for granting compassionate allowance has been made by the rule making authority. 3. Legal Liaison Officer appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner has been convicted for one of the gravest offences for which the punishment prescribed by law is either death or imprisonment for life. This aspect has been noted by the 2nd respondent and compassionate allowance has been denied on that ground as well. 4. I am afraid the above contention of the counsel for the respondent cannot be accepted. The very fact that compassionate allowance is meant for persons who are not entitled for any terminal benefits, itself indicates that the class of persons who are entitled for such allowance will necessarily consist of those who have been dismissed from service for proved misconduct of a grave nature. The order of dismissal passed was taking into account the conduct of the employee leading to conviction by the Criminal Court. Compassionate allowance is meant for rehabilitation of an ex-employee who finds it difficult to sustain himself as a human being on account of abject poverty, even if his suffering is the result of past unpardonable sin committed by him. The order of dismissal passed was taking into account the conduct of the employee leading to conviction by the Criminal Court. Compassionate allowance is meant for rehabilitation of an ex-employee who finds it difficult to sustain himself as a human being on account of abject poverty, even if his suffering is the result of past unpardonable sin committed by him. The fact that he was convicted for an offence and thereafter suffered imprisonment cannot itself be a ground for denial of compassionate allowance, under Rule 5 of Part I KSRs. Second respondent passed Ext.P-9 order without taking into consideration relevant aspects. Ext.P-9 is infirm for the reason that the 2nd respondent was influenced by irrelevant aspects mentioned in the last but one paragraph of that order. Ext. P-9 is therefore set aside. 5. Respondent-Board is directed to pass fresh orders in the light of Rule 5 Part I KSR, as also the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Thankappan v. State of Kerala [2001 (3) I.L.R. Kerala 464]. This shall be done within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the Judgment.