JUDGMENT : Alexander Thomas, J. The unsuccessful applicant in O.A No.1716/2020 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram Bench, has instituted the instant Original Petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers : “i) To set aside the order dated 9.12.2021 passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram in O.A.No.1716/2020 holding that Tribunal had failed to exercise the jurisdiction in a judicial way appreciating the dictum laid by the Hon'ble High Court in various decisions and hence allow the Original Petition (KAT) directing to grant pension and other pensionary benefits to the petitioner forthwith; ii) To issue such other direction or order which deem fit for the facts and circumstances of the case, set aside the order of Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram in O.A.No.1716/2020 dated 9.12.2021 and allow the Original Petition (KAT) directing this respondent to disburse the pension and pensionary benefits to the petitioner. iii) Petitioner be granted such further reliefs as are appropriate and incidental to this Original Petition.” 2. Heard Sri.R.Anilkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the O.P/applicant in the O.A and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents in the O.P/respondents in the O.A. 3. The prayers in the instant Ext.P-1 Original Application, O.A No.1716/2020 are as follows : “(i) To direct the respondents to reckon the entire service of the applicant from the date of his initial appointment for the purpose of reckoning qualifying service for Pension, DCRG, Pay Revision benefits, increments, leave surrender and other allowances and disburse the monetary benefits to him forthwith. (ii) To issue such other orders or directions as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 4. The Tribunal after hearing both sides, has rendered the impugned Ext.P-2 final order dated 09.12.2021, dismissing O.A No.1716/2020 on the ground that no interference is called for with the impugned order passed by the Government, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate allowance. 5. A brief recital of the facts of this case would be pertinent. The petitioner in the O.P will be referred for convenience as the 'original applicant/applicant'. The applicant was initially appointed as the Primary Department (PD) Teacher in Government schools on 07.08.1962. 5. A brief recital of the facts of this case would be pertinent. The petitioner in the O.P will be referred for convenience as the 'original applicant/applicant'. The applicant was initially appointed as the Primary Department (PD) Teacher in Government schools on 07.08.1962. Later, disciplinary action was taken against him and he was ordered to be removed from service, for unauthorized absence, i.e. refusal to rejoin service after expiry of Leave Without Allowance (LWA) availed by him. So, by Annexure A-2 order, the District Education Officer had ordered his removal from service on 01.06.1978. So, the length of service of the applicant in Government school as a Primary Department Teacher, is for the period from 07.08.1962 to 01.06.1978 (9 years 6 months & 25 days). Long after his dismissal from service, as per Annexure A-2 dated 01.06.1978, the applicant had made an application before the respondents seeking for grant of compassionate allowance in terms of Rule 5 of Part-III KSR. This was rejected by the 3rd respondent-Director of Public Instructions (presently Director of General Education), as per Annexure A-3 order dated 11.01.2011, on the ground that since the applicant does not have the minimum qualifying service for grant of minimum pension and hence, he is not eligible for compassionate allowance in terms of Rule 5 Part-III KSR. Thereafter, the applicant had put up another claim contending that he had prior provisional service and if the said provisional service is also tagged along with the regular service, as above, then the same would render him eligible for minimum qualifying service for sanction of compassionate allowance, etc. and the said request has also been rejected by Annexure A-7 dated 10.01.2018, issued by the 1st respondent-State Government. Later, the applicant had again preferred another representation, which has now been rejected as per Annexure A-14 order dated 24.09.2020, issued by the 1st respondent-State Government, stating that, going by the financial criteria, the claim of the applicant for compassionate allowance does not deserve any acceptance. It is in the light of these aspects that the applicant has approached the Tribunal by filing the instant O.A. 6. The main issue posed before us is as to whether the applicant is eligible to put forward a claim for grant of compassionate allowance, in terms of Rule 5 Part-III KSR. It is in the light of these aspects that the applicant has approached the Tribunal by filing the instant O.A. 6. The main issue posed before us is as to whether the applicant is eligible to put forward a claim for grant of compassionate allowance, in terms of Rule 5 Part-III KSR. In that regard, some of the provisions in KSR Part-III, like Rule 5, Rule 29 & Rule 57 thereof, would be relevant. 7. Rule 5 of Part-III KSR reads as follows : “Rule 5. Misconduct or inefficiency.-(a) No pension may be granted to an employee dismissed or removed for misconduct, insolvency or inefficiency, but to employees so dismissed or removed, compassionate allowances may be granted when they are deserving of special consideration; provided that the allowances granted to any employee shall not exceed two-thirds of the pension which would have been admissible to him if he had retired on the date of dismissal or removal. (b) The following procedure shall be followed in the matter of sanctioning compassionate allowance:- (i) On receipt of the orders of the competent authority removing/dismissing an employee from service for misconduct, insolvency or inefficiency the Head of the Office, if he proposes to recommend the grant of a compassionate allowance, should fill in the first page of the application for pension in Form 2 and send it to the Audit Officer concerned for report on the title to the compassionate allowance. The Head of the Office should not wait for an application from the employee. (ii) If the competent authority in issuing orders of removal/dismissal states that a certain proportion of pension is to be granted as compassionate allowance, no further sanction to compassionate allowance is necessary and all that is required is that the Audit Officer should certify to the admissibility of compassionate allowance on a pension application completed and signed by the Head of the Office as provided above.” 8. Rule 29 of Part-III KSR provides as follows : “Rule 29. Resignation and Dismissals.- (a) Resignation of the Public Service or dismissal or removal from it, entails forfeiture of past service. (b) Resignation of an appointment to take up another appointment the service in which counts is not resignation from public service. 9. Rule 57 of Part-III KSR provides as follows : “Rule 57. Resignation and Dismissals.- (a) Resignation of the Public Service or dismissal or removal from it, entails forfeiture of past service. (b) Resignation of an appointment to take up another appointment the service in which counts is not resignation from public service. 9. Rule 57 of Part-III KSR provides as follows : “Rule 57. The amount of pension that shall be granted is determined by the length of service as set forth in rules 64 to 70. Qualifying service for the minimum pension shall be 10 years and maximum pension shall be 30 years respectively. In calculating the length of qualifying service, fraction of a year, if any, in the service will be rounded to the nearest completed year, i.e., fractions less than half year, will be ignored and half year and above rounded to the next completed year. Provided that for the purpose of minimum service (i.e., 10 years) and maximum service (i.e.30 years) for pension, fraction of less than a half year, if any, in the qualifying service above 9 years and 29 years respectively will be rounded to the next completed years, i.e., 10 years or 30 years as the case may be. Provided further that for calculating the qualifying service, a month shall be a calendar month irrespective of the days contained in it and a year shall mean a completed year of service. The completed year of service shall be taken first, then completed calendar months and the remaining days in the leftover month shall be counted. If the total number of remaining days plus an extra day for each leap year in the entire service is 30 days or more, it can be considered as an additional month. Further, calculation of the period of additions to qualifying service, non qualifying service, if any, also shall be calculated applying the same principle. Note 1.-The term “pension” includes gratuity, death-cum-retirement gratuity and family pension also. For the calculation of maximum death-cum-retirement gratuity, 32 years and one day will be rounded to 33 years. Note 2.-The grant of compassionate allowance being an “act of grace” the grant of any further concession in the shape of rounding fraction of a year will not be allowed. Note 3.-Head of the Department/Pension Sanctioning Authority should verify the extra days in leap year for qualifying service based on the Attendance Register/Pay Bill Register and Service Book of the employee. Note 3.-Head of the Department/Pension Sanctioning Authority should verify the extra days in leap year for qualifying service based on the Attendance Register/Pay Bill Register and Service Book of the employee. In the case of Gazetted employees, Accountant General should verify the Entitlement Register. After verification the authority should affix the following certificate in the Service Book Verification Report of Gazetted Employees.” (emphasis supplied) 10. It has been inter alia mandated in clause (a) of Rule 29 Part-III KSR that the dismissal or removal from service would entail forfeiture of past service. However, Rule 5 of Part-III KSR has been engrafted as a special provision for consideration of grant of compassionate allowances in deserving cases, in the case of employees dismissed or removed for misconduct, insolvency or inefficiency, etc. Clause (a) Rule 5 of Part-III KSR would make it clear that no pension may be granted to an employee, dismissed or removed for misconduct, insolvency or inefficiency, but to such employees so dismissed or removed, compassionate allowances may be granted when they are deserving of special consideration; provided that the allowance granted to an employee, shall not exceed two-thirds of the pension, which would have been admissible to him, if he had retired on the date of dismissal or removal. 11. Further, the operative portion of Rule 57 would stipulate that the amount of pension that shall be granted is determined by the length of service as set forth in Rules 64 to 70 thereof. Further it is stipulated in Rule 57 that the fraction of a year, if any, in the service will be rounded to the nearest completed year, i.e. fractions less than half year, will be ignored and half year and above will be rounded to the next completed year. A further special provision is made in the Proviso to Rule 57, which stipulates that, for the purpose of minimum service, i.e. 10 years and maximum service, i.e. 30 years, for pension, fraction of less than a half year, if any, the qualifying service of above 9 years & 29 years respectively, will be rounded to the next completed years, i.e. 10 years or 30 years, as the case may be. 12. Note 1 to Rule 57 may not be very relevant in the present case. 12. Note 1 to Rule 57 may not be very relevant in the present case. Note 2 to Rule 57 specifically mandates that the grant of compassionate allowance, being an “act of grace”, the grant of any further concession in the shape of rounding off fraction in a year will not be allowed. In the instant case, the contentions raised by Sri.R.Anilkumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, is that, admittedly, even without counting the provisional service, the applicant has 9 years, 6 months & 25 days of qualifying regular service, from the date of his regular appointment upto the date of his dismissal. Further that, going by the operative portion of Rule 57 and the first proviso thereto, the said period of 9 years, 6 months & 25 days is to be rounded of as 10 years, which would make the case eligible for grant of minimum pension. In that regard, the specific argument raised by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the proviso to clause (a) of Rule 5 of Part-III KSR would stipulate that allowances granted to an employee shall not exceed two-third of the pension, which would have been admissible to him, if he had retired on the date of dismissal or removal. The specific argument raised in that regard by the applicant is that a legal fiction has to be applied even in the case of an employee dismissed or removed, seeking compassionate allowance and it should be ascertained as to whether pension would have been admissible to such an incumbent, if he had retired on the date of dismissal i.e., if the said legal fiction is applied, then it should be treated as if he has retired from service on the date of dismissal and on that day, he has 9 years, 6 months & 25 days. That therefore, when the said factual aspect is applied to the provisions contained in Rule 57 and its proviso, the inevitable flow that the abovesaid period of 9 years 6 months & 25 days will have to be rounded off to 10 years and therefore, he has minimum qualifying pension. Hence, it is argued that the main ground of rejection, stated in Annexure A-4, that he is not otherwise eligible for minimum qualifying pension, etc. for denying compassionate allowance, is untenable and unsustainable. 13. Hence, it is argued that the main ground of rejection, stated in Annexure A-4, that he is not otherwise eligible for minimum qualifying pension, etc. for denying compassionate allowance, is untenable and unsustainable. 13. Per contra, the contention raised by Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, is that, by the very nature of the provisions of the Rule, if an incumbent suffers dismissal or removal from service, then he could legally entail, for the forfeiture of past service altogether. So in the context of the said provisions contained in Rule 29, the other provisions in Rule 5 & Rule 57 will have to be evaluated by this Court. That, Rule 5 is only an exception to the general bar contained in Rule 29, regarding the forfeiture of past service, in the case of a dismissed or removed employee. Further that, no employee, who has been dismissed or removed from service, can claim the grant of compassionate allowances as a matter of right and it is solely an “act of grace” on the part of the Government. The limit of two-third of the pension, mentioned in Rule 5, is only the upper limit and it does not necessarily mean that, if an incumbent is otherwise deserving, he or she should automatically get two-third of pension, otherwise admissible. That, Note 2 to Rule 57 would make it clear, beyond any doubt, that in dealing with cases of grant of compassionate allowance, as it is an “act of grace”, grant of any further concession, in the shape of rounding off, has been prohibited by the rule making authority. That in the light of this aspect, there is no question of rounding off being applied in the case of service of a dismissed/removed employee, like the applicant, in order to reckon whether the rounding off benefits could be considered in terms of the operative portion and proviso to Rule 57 of Part-III KSR. 14. After hearing both sides, we are of the view that the rule making authority has made its intention clear beyond any doubt that, in the case of an employee dismissed or removed from service, the same would automatically lead to forfeiture of past service benefits. 14. After hearing both sides, we are of the view that the rule making authority has made its intention clear beyond any doubt that, in the case of an employee dismissed or removed from service, the same would automatically lead to forfeiture of past service benefits. Rule 5 is an exception to the said scenario and it is an “act of grace” on the part of the Government to be considered only in deserving and rare cases. Note 2 to Rule 57 of Part-III KSR would make it clear that the specific and manifest intention of the rule making authority is that the provision for rounding off, otherwise eligible in Rule 57, shall not be applied, reckoning a case for compassionate allowance. In other words, the rule making authority has prohibited any further concession, in the shape of rounding off fraction of the year, for the purpose of considering a claim for compassionate allowance under Rule 5 of Part-III KSR. Hence, the abovesaid stand of the official respondents, that the applicant is not eligible to be considered for grant of compassionate allowance in terms of Rule 5 Part-III KSR, as he does not have the minimum qualifying service of 10 years, appears to be legally correct. 15. Yet another argument is also raised by the learned counsel for the applicant that the main ground for rejection, now cited in Annexure A-14, is that the applicant need not be granted compassionate allowance, on the ground of financial criteria. It is pointed out that, even in the report of the Collector, referred to in Annexure A-14, the total income of the applicant is shown as Rs.72,000/-per annum, etc. Further it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant that the Village Officer has conducted a proper enquiry and has certified, as per Annexure A-13 certificate dated 18.02.2020, that the annual income of the applicant is only Rs.48,000/-per month. We need not get into those aspects, since the rounding off is prohibited, there is no question of considering the claim of the applicant for grant of compassionate allowance, for the reasons stated above. 16. We need not get into those aspects, since the rounding off is prohibited, there is no question of considering the claim of the applicant for grant of compassionate allowance, for the reasons stated above. 16. Further, we are now apprised by the learned Senior Government Pleader, on the basis of instructions from the respondents as well as the District Collector concerned, that the enquiry of the Collector has also revealed that both the applicant and his wife are securing senior citizens' old age pension and that they are residing with one of their sons, etc. We have referred to this aspect, only because, earlier, we were not apprised that the applicant was getting old age pension. Hence, we had requested the learned Senior Government Pleader to get instructions from the competent authority, like the District Collector, as to whether the case of the applicant could be considered for grant of old age pension. Since both the applicant and his wife are getting old age pension, there is no question of any consideration of claim in that regard. 17. The upshot of the above discussion is that, the stand of the official respondents in rejecting the claim of the applicant, for grant of compassionate allowance in terms of Rule 5 Part-III KSR, does not deserve any judicial interdiction at the hands of this Court. The petition fails and accordingly, the Original Petition will stand dismissed.