JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - Petitioner, as an applicant, filed O.A. No. 2182(c)/2008, before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, seeking quashing the order passed by the Commissioner-Cum-Secretary to Government Fisheries & ARD Department, rejecting the representation filed by the Petitioner & issuance of a direction to the State of Orissa and Ors. to extend the compassionate allowance in his favour. 2. The scenario of tacts reveal that the Petitioner was serving as an attendant attached to the Live-stock Aid Centre at. Kanasara in Deogarh Sub-division of Sambalpur District. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him on the charges of disobedience of orders, negligence of duty, unauthorized absence from the station & certain acts of misbehaviour against V.A.S., Deogarh. Subsequently, it is alleged that the Petitioner threatened to murder the SDVO, Deogarh & an additional charge was framed to that effect. During pendency of the Departmental Proceeding by order dtd. 1.8.1994 he was placed under suspension. While matter stood thus, it is alleged that on 2.8.1984 the Petitioner forcibly entered into the office of SDVO, Deogarh, being armed with a piece of stone & threatened to assault him by hurling abusive language. 3. On the basis of an F.I.P. lodged, G.R. Case No. 201/1984 was initiated against the Petitioner for commission of offences under Sections 448, 294 & 506 IPC. After trial he was found guilty of commission of the offence under Sections 448 & 294 IPC & was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months & one month respectively. An appeal being filed against the said order of conviction & sentence, conviction u/s 294 IPC was set aside, however the Petitioner was convicted for the offence u/s 448 IPC but the punishment was modified to one of fine of Rs.500. The said order was assailed before this Court in Crl. Appeal No. 446/1996. This Court dismissed the revision, but the fine was further reduced to Rs. 100. 4. While matters stood thus, the Petitioner approached this Court in OJC No. 477/1986 with a prayer to quash the Disciplinary Enquiry. On promulgation of the Administrative Tribunal Act, the Writ Petition was transferred to the Orissa Administrative Tribunal & was registered as Transfer Application No. 339/87. 100. 4. While matters stood thus, the Petitioner approached this Court in OJC No. 477/1986 with a prayer to quash the Disciplinary Enquiry. On promulgation of the Administrative Tribunal Act, the Writ Petition was transferred to the Orissa Administrative Tribunal & was registered as Transfer Application No. 339/87. The Tribunal by a reasoned order dtd.29.6.1989 dismissed the Original Application & directed that the subsistence allowance admissible to the Petitioner should be paid within 3 months & the disciplinary proceedings should be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. 5. In the Disciplinary Proceeding the charges were proved & the Petitioner was dismissed from service mainly on the ground that he was eonvicted u/s 448 IPC. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed O.A. No. 1789 (c)/1993 before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal. The said O.A. was disposed of by Order Dated 11.7.2001 giving liberty to the Petitioner to file an application for grant of compassionate allowance under Rule 13 of the Orissa Pension Rules, 1977 (for short" Pension Rules") which was in force at the relevant time. 6. The Petitioner thereafter filed a revision before the competent authority with a prayer to allow him compassionate allowance. The authorities after due consideration of the application, rejected the same. Being aggrieved the Petitioner once again filed O.A No. 2182(c)/ 2008 before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, Cuttack. According to the Petitioner the extreme punishment of dismissal imposed by the Disciplinary Proceeding is highly disproportionate to the offence alleged to have been committed by the Petitioner & as such the authorities acted illegally & with material irregularity in not extending the benefit of compassionate allowance under Rule 13 of Pension Rules. The Tribunal after hearing Learned Counsel for the parties, by Order Dated 11.11.2008 dismissed the Original Application. Being aggrieved the Petitioner has approached this Court. 7. Mr. Mohapatra, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, relying upon Rule 13 of the Pension Rules, submitted that the order of termination being bad in law & highly disproportionate, the authorities should have at least extended the benefits flowing out of Rule 13 of the Pension Rules in his favour. The Tribunal, it is submitted, lost sight of the said fact & the order impugned thus according to Mr. Mohapatra cannot be sustained. 8. The aforesaid submissions are strongly repudiated by Mr. Patnaik, Learned Counsel appearing for the State. The Tribunal, it is submitted, lost sight of the said fact & the order impugned thus according to Mr. Mohapatra cannot be sustained. 8. The aforesaid submissions are strongly repudiated by Mr. Patnaik, Learned Counsel appearing for the State. According to him the order of termination/dismissal of the Petitioner has already attained finality as the same was not assailed before any authority. The only question which remained to be considered is as to whether the Petitioner is entitled to receive compassionate allowance in consonance with Rule 13 of the Pension Rules. It is submitted that the authority has duly considered the said aspect & held that the Petitioner is net entitled to receive compassionate allowance, consequently the order passed by the authority was confirmed. The said order being in consonance with law needs no interference. 9. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length & perused the materials available on record. Fact remains, the Petitioner, who is a Government employee, was placed under suspension way back in 01.8.1984 & a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. During pendency of the disciplinary proceeding the Petitioner got himself involved in a criminal case being G.R. Case No. 201/1984. It is alleged that he trespassed into the office of SDVO & trred to assault him with a stone. The G.R. case ended in conviction. The appeal filed confirmed the conviction & this Court upheld the conviction in the criminal revision. Thus, the conviction of the Petitioner in the criminal case has been confirmed & attained finality. 10. Thereafter, it appears that he was dismissed from service on the ground that he was convicted in a criminal proceeding. Conviction by a Court is no doubt a stigma, but then in all' occasions it does not stand to reason that the extreme penalty of the dismissal would automatically follow. 11. Be that as it may, fact remains, the Petitioner had assailed the order of dismissal before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1789(c)/1993. The said O.A. was, however, disposed of giving liberty to the Petitioner to approach the authority for grant of compassionate allowance under Rule 13 of the Pension Rules. In other words the punishment of dismissal from service was not interfered, on the other hand, the same was confirmed. The said O.A. was, however, disposed of giving liberty to the Petitioner to approach the authority for grant of compassionate allowance under Rule 13 of the Pension Rules. In other words the punishment of dismissal from service was not interfered, on the other hand, the same was confirmed. The said order was not assailed by the Petitioner before the Court & also attained finality & is no more open to be examined by this Court at this stage. 12. In the present case, the Petitioner only assails the Order Dated 11.11.2008 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 2182(c)/2008. Admittedly, in the said O.A. the Petitioner prayed to quash the order passed by the Commissioner-Cum-Secretary to Government, Fisheries & ARD Department rejecting the representation filed by the Petitioner to extend the benefit of compassionate allowance in consonance with Rule 13 of the Pension Rules. For the sake of brevity the said Rule is quoted herein below: No pension may be granted to a Government Servant dismissed or removed from Government Service as a disciplinary measure but to such a Government Servant compassionate allowance may be granted by Government when he is deserving of special consideration. Provided that such allowance granted to any Government servant shall not exceed 2/3rds of the pension and/or gratuity which would have been admissible to him if he had retired on medical certificate. The Rule specifically provides that a Government employee dismissed or removed from service as a disciplinary measure, is not entitled to any pension. However, it further stipulates that a Government employee may be granted compassionate allowance by the Government when he deserves special consideration. 13. Admittedly, while facing a departmental proceeding the Petitioner trespassed into the office of the SDVO, Deogarh & tried to assault the officer with a stone. He was found guilty & had been convicted. The conviction has been confirmed by this Court in a criminal revision. It appears from the order of the Tribunal that the Petitioner was in Jail in the year 2008. 14. Under the aforesaid circumstances considering the conduct of the Petitioner, the Opp. Party-Commissioner, came to the conclusion that it is a fit case where the compassionate allowance cannot be granted on special consideration. The Tribunal also declined to interfere with the said decision. 15. 14. Under the aforesaid circumstances considering the conduct of the Petitioner, the Opp. Party-Commissioner, came to the conclusion that it is a fit case where the compassionate allowance cannot be granted on special consideration. The Tribunal also declined to interfere with the said decision. 15. After going through the impugned order, we find no infirmity, even otherwise compassion cannot be insisted & has to be extended only on deserving persons on special consideration which are absent in the present case, & decline to interfere with the same. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. B.N. Mahapatra, J. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed