JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. 1. Heard Mr. T.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Arpit Kumar, A.C. to G.P. II for the respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 11.11.2009 whereby and where under the respondent authorities rejected the claim of the petitioner for payment of compassionate allowances. The petitioner was dismissed from the service in the year 2006 on account of some criminal case vide Annexure-1. It is further submitted that under Rule 101 (a) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, resignation, dismissal or removal from service for misconduct entails forfeiture of past service. Under Rule 46 of the said Pension Rules, no pension to be given to a government servant, dismissed or removed for misconduct. However, in special circumstances and consideration, the government servant so dismissed or removed may be allowed compassionate allowance, in deserving cases. The petitioner moved before this Court in W.P.S. 1297 of 2008 which was disposed of vide order dated 1st September, 2009 and held as under: “In view of the aforesaid submission, I hereby direct respondent no. 3 to treat this writ petition as a representation and to decide the same, in accordance with law, rules regulation, policies and enforceable Government orders, applicable to the petitioner, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner or to his representative, as expeditiously as possible and practicable, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of an order of this Court. If the decision is taken in favour of the petitioner, the legally payable amount shall be paid to the petitioner, within further period of two weeks, thereafter.” 3. In view of the direction of this Court, the authority has taken decision and decided the case of the petitioner that since this petitioner has been dismissed and terminated and convicted in the criminal case and he is not entitled for any relief under Rule 46 of Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2007. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner is entitled for compassionate allowances as provided under the Jharkhand Pension Rules, but, he fails to make out his case that he deserves special consideration for allowing the compassionate allowance. Hence, no case of interference is made out by the petitioner. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.