JUDGMENT : (NELSON SAILO, J.) Heard Mr. Lalrokunga Pautu, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Addl. Advocate General for the respondent. By filing this application, the petitioner who was currently lodged in Central Jail on account of being convicted under Section 302 of the IPC has sought for compassionate allowance as admissible under Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and also for encashment of unutilized earned leave under Rule 39 (6) (a) (i) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 . [2.] Brief facts of the case is that the petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the year 1976 in the Supply & Transport Department. Thereafter, he was declared quasi permanent on 20.03.1979 and subsequently promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk (UDC) on 25.11.1982. The petitioner was regularized in service on 10.03.1983. [3.] While the petitioner was serving as such, he was suspended on 15.02.2007 on account of being arrested in connection with a certain criminal case. He was thereafter reinstated on 10.06.2008. The petitioner on account of his involvement in the criminal case faced criminal trial i.e., Criminal Trial No. 199/2007 arising out of Bawngkawn Police Station Case No. 71/2007 under Section 302 IPC and the trial ended in favor of the prosecution. The petitioner was therefore convicted under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for life vide Judgment & Order dated 19.12.2012. Following the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner, he was dismissed from service vide order dated 19.02.2013 and has since been lodged in jail to carry out the term of imprisonment imposed upon him. It is submitted at the bar that the petitioner submitted an appeal before this Court against his conviction and sentence but the same has been dismissed by this Court. As stated earlier, the petitioner has now filed the instant writ petition claiming for compassionate allowance as well as encashment of unutilized earned leave. [4.] Mr. Lalrokunga Pautu, learned Legal Aid Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as well as Rule 39 (6) (a) (i) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 to impress upon the Court that the petitioner is entitled to be given such benefit despite being dismissed from service and also convicted by a criminal Court. The learned Legal Aid Counsel submits that the petitioner has rendered good service in the past and for which, he has received commendation. Therefore, the petitioner should be given the compassionate allowance as well as encashment of his unutilized earned leave in terms of the relevant provisions of law as claimed by him. The learned Legal Aid Counsel refers to Clause (2) of the Govt. of India’s decision under Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 wherein, it has been stated that each case has to be considered on its merits and a conclusion has to be reached on the question as to whether there was any extenuating features in the case as would make the punishment awarded, though it may have been necessary in the interests of Government, unduly hard on the individual. In considering this question, it has been the practice to take into account not only the actual misconduct or course of misconduct which occasioned the dismissal or removal of the officer, but also the kind of service he has rendered. The learned Legal Aid Counsel submits that the petitioner submitted his application for the benefits claimed by him in this writ petition before the respondent authorities but however, the same was rejected. Subsequently, he filed an appeal seeking re-consideration of the rejection through his wife but the same was also declined. Therefore, having no alternative, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. The learned Legal Aid Counsel in support of his submission has relied upon the following authorities :- (1) Mahinder Dutt Sharma Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2014) 11 SCC 684 (2) Anna Deoram Londhe deceased through his L.R. Smt. Indirabai w/o Anna Lodhe Vs. State of Maharashtra 1998 (3) Mh.L.J. (3) Ex. ASI Shadi Ram Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 2008 SCC OnLine Del 1396 (4) State of Karnataka & Anr. Vs. Karnataka State Patels Sangha & Anr. (2007) 4 SCC 207 & (5) State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. O.P Gupta (2022) 18 SCC 382 [5.] The learned Legal Aid Counsel thus submits that the writ petition may be allowed as prayed for by the petitioner. [6.] Ms. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Addl. Vs. Karnataka State Patels Sangha & Anr. (2007) 4 SCC 207 & (5) State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. O.P Gupta (2022) 18 SCC 382 [5.] The learned Legal Aid Counsel thus submits that the writ petition may be allowed as prayed for by the petitioner. [6.] Ms. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Addl. Advocate General on the other hand by referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State respondent submits that the petitioner has committed a grave misconduct, which is evident from the fact that he was convicted by the Trial Court under Section 302 IPC. The application for compassionate allowance and other benefit was duly considered by the respondent authorities but the same was regretted on three (3) occasions. Therefore, the writ petition has no merit and should be dismissed. She submits that in so far as the requirement of financial support for proper treatment of the petitioner is concerned, the medical expenses can be reimbursed by his wife, who is also an employee of the State Government. The learned Addl. Advocate General has also produced the records as was directed by this Court. [7.] I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. There is no dispute to the fact that compassionate allowance can be granted under Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 to a person who has been dismissed from service including a person who has been convicted by a Court of law. In so far as the claim for encashment of unutilized earned leave in terms of Rule 39 (6) (a) (i) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 is concerned, it appears that the petitioner has not raised this issue before the authority concerned and therefore the question as to whether such leave encashment would be available to a person who has been dismissed from service on account of being convicted by a Court of law remains open. The Apex Court in Mahinder Dutt Sharma (supra) have given five (5) illustrations for evaluating as to whether an employee deserves to be granted compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 . The Apex Court in Mahinder Dutt Sharma (supra) have given five (5) illustrations for evaluating as to whether an employee deserves to be granted compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 . [8.] The Legal Aid Counsel submits that the petitioner may appear to be covered by the first illustration in paragraph No. 14.1 (i) of the said Judgment but however, the illustrations are not limited only to the five (5) illustrative points given as admitted by the Supreme Court. While the conduct, moral and behavior of the petitioner may be factors to be considered but however the past meritorious service rendered by the petitioner cannot be ignored and should also be taken into consideration as a guiding principle for grant of compassionate allowance in terms of the Government of India’s decision under Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 . He submits that such consideration was not done while rejecting the petitioner’s claim and therefore, the respondents are liable to be directed to give such consideration for grant of compassionate allowance to the petitioner. [9.] Reliance has also been placed on the case of Anna Deoram Londhe (supra) wherein, the petitioner since deceased was removed from service on account of his conviction for offence under Section 302 amongst others. The High Court had interfered with the conviction under Section 302 IPC by altering the same to a conviction under Section 325 IPC. Although challenge made to the conviction was not interfered with by the Apex Court but the petitioner was allowed to claim compassionate allowance as admissible in law which accordingly was granted to him after his demise to his legal heir including family pension to his widow. [10.] Reliance has also been placed on State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. O.P Gupta (supra) wherein, the Apex Court held that financial rules framed by the Government such as, Pension Rules where more than one interpretation is possible, the courts would lean towards the interpretation which goes in favor of the employee. [11.] From what has been discussed herein above, it can be seen that compassionate allowance can be granted to an employee who was dismissed from service on been convicted by a Court of law. However, there are certain parameters under which such considerations are to be made. I have perused the records produced by the learned Addl. [11.] From what has been discussed herein above, it can be seen that compassionate allowance can be granted to an employee who was dismissed from service on been convicted by a Court of law. However, there are certain parameters under which such considerations are to be made. I have perused the records produced by the learned Addl. Advocate General which goes to show that the application submitted by the petitioner for compassionate allowance was put up before the competent authority by indicating the criteria for such consideration i.e, actual misconduct or course of misconduct which occasioned the dismissal or removal from service and secondly, the kind of service that was rendered by the employee. It is seen that the authority opined that the application did not reveal any tangible justification for compassionate allowance and as for the medical needs, the same can be addressed by the prison authorities. Not satisfied, the petitioner thereafter submitted two (2) more applications seeking re-consideration of the decision taken while stressing on the fact that during his entire service, he had good records and he was the backbone staff in the department where he was posted. Further, he was awarded honorarium in cash while he was posted in Food, Civil Supply & Consumer Affairs Department. He was also awarded Best Performance Report while he was posted in the office of Controller of Printing & Stationary Department. Therefore, taking into account the meritorious service rendered by him and also importantly, the fact that he was suffering endless medical complications, compassionate allowance should therefore be given to him. However, the further applications submitted by the petitioner through his wife was rejected on the ground that a decision had already been taken earlier and as the crime committed by the petitioner was murder, status quo should therefore be maintained. Accordingly, the wife of the petitioner was informed about the rejection of the application on 18.11.2021. [12.] From a perusal of the records, it is seen that though a reasonable write up has been made with regard to the claim made by the petitioner himself and thereafter through his wife with regard to the good service record that the petitioner had while in service, there appears to be no discussion or consideration of the same. [12.] From a perusal of the records, it is seen that though a reasonable write up has been made with regard to the claim made by the petitioner himself and thereafter through his wife with regard to the good service record that the petitioner had while in service, there appears to be no discussion or consideration of the same. In other words, the first application submitted by him having been rejected on 17.06.2013 and therefore his appeal being rejected on 30.07.2013, the third application submitted by him through his wife also stood rejected due to the earlier rejections. Therefore, apart from the reason for his dismissal from service being the main consideration for rejection of his application for compassionate allowance, the kind of service that the petitioner had rendered while in service appears not to have been taken into consideration. The petitioner in support of his contention that he had rendered good service has also annexed the Letter of Appreciation and other testimonials issued by the authority concerned in the writ petition as Annexure – XII A, XIII & XIV. [13.] Thus, upon due consideration of the case in its entirety, I am of the considered view that the respondent authority should re-visit the case of the petitioner by taking into account the service rendered by him in the past in terms of the Government of India’s decision as provided under Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 . Accordingly, the Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, DP&AR shall undertake the exercise of considering the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate allowance in terms of the observation made herein above within a period of two (2) months from the date or receipt of a certified copy of this Order. The said authority shall also consider the claim of the petitioner for encashment of unutilized earned leave as may be permissible under the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 . The respondent authority concerned shall take a decision as directed herein above within the time frame provided by passing a reasoned and speaking order which shall be communicated to the petitioner. [14.] With the above observation and direction, writ petition stands disposed of.