JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Appellant-writ petitioner came to be dismissed from service on account of entering into second marriage during subsistence of his first marriage, being misconduct. His compassionate allowance was fixed with effect from 1st September, 1979, accepted the same and after lapse of 26 years, filed an Original Application before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, which was transferred to this Court and came to be registered as CWP (T) No. 12637 of 2008, was dismissed vide judgment and order, dated 9th March, 2012, feeling aggrieved, questioned the same by the medium of LPA No. 569 of 2012, was partly allowed vide judgment, dated 6th August, 2013, by setting aside the judgment to the extent it has rejected prayer clause (a) of the writ petition, the writ petition was revived so far it relates to prayer clause (a) and the Writ Court was requested to reconsider the matter and pass orders afresh. 2. It is apt to reproduce para 5 of the judgment passed by this Court in LPA No. 569 of 2012, herein: “5. We are, therefore, in agreement with the grievance made by the appellant in this behalf, for which reason we partly allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment to the extent it has rejected prayer clause (a) of the writ petition. That prayer clause will have to be reconsidered by the learned Single Judge afresh on its own merits.” 3. The Writ Court considered the matter, made discussions and dismissed the writ petition in terms of para 3 of the impugned judgment. 4. It is also apt to mention herein that Rule 41 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, governs the field, is reproduced herein: “41. Compassionate Allowance. (1) A Government servant who is dismissed or removed from service shall forfeit his pension and gratuity: Provided that the authority competent to dismiss or remove him from service may, if the case is deserving of special consideration, sanction a Compassionate Allowance not exceeding two-thirds of pension or gratuity or both which would have been admissible to him if he had retired on compensation pension. ….................” 5. While going through the said Rule, one comes to an inescapable conclusion that the competent authority has rightly granted the compassionate allowance in the year 1979. 6. Having said so, no case for interference is made out. ….................” 5. While going through the said Rule, one comes to an inescapable conclusion that the competent authority has rightly granted the compassionate allowance in the year 1979. 6. Having said so, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed alongwith pending applications, if any.