JUDGMENT - V.G. PALSHIKAR, J.:---By this petition the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of family pension on his retirement on superannuation.

2. The facts which are not disputed are in a very narrow compass, that the petitioner was recruited as a daily wager in 1964. In 1980 a post of labour supervisor on the establishment of respondent No. 2 was sanctioned. On 13-9-1983 the petitioner was appointed permanently on that post. It is not in dispute, as will be seen from the averments made in para 2 of the affidavit in reply, that the petitioner was made permanent in the cadre of supervisor on 13-9-1980. Thus the petitioner was undisputedly working as a labour supervisor from 13-9-1980 though he was working as a daily wager since 1964.

3. The petitioner was denied the pensionary benefits. Relying on the provisions of Rule 57 of the Maharashtra Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1982, according to which the petitioner has not completed 10 years of qualifying service as labour supervisor and therefore according to the Government as required by Rule 57 he is not entitled to any terminal benefits.

4. The petitioner's original application for this relief before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal was also rejected by the Tribunal agreeing with the contention of the State that Rule 57 did not permit the grant of any such benefit of pension to the petitioner. Unfortunately the factual position that the petitioner served for more than 10 years continuously as a labour supervisor which was a permanent sanctioned post with the Government, was not taken into consideration. The provision of Rule 30 of the Pension Rules and those of Rule 57 were also considered in the proper perspective by the Tribunal and which resulted the Tribunal rejecting the application of the petitioner requiring the petitioner to move before this Court for exercising its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. The denial of pensionary benefits by the State to its employees on flimsy ground is not a phenomena any more for various reasons, most of which are flimsy, and the pensionary benefits are denied by the State to its employees. It would therefore be necessary in the circumstances, to examine the provisions of the Pension Rules in proper perspective. Rule 30 of the Pension Rules is a basic Rule on entitlement, which spells out who are entitled to the pensionary benefits like family pension in the service of Government of Maharashtra, which reads as under:

"30. Commencement of qualifying service.---Subject to the provisions of these Rules qualifying service of a Government servant shall commence from the date he takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity:

Provided that at the time of retirement he shall hold substantively a permanent post in Government service or holds a suspended lien or certificate of permanency.

(Provided further that, in cases where a temporary Government servant retires on superannuation or on being declared permanently incapacitated for further Government service by the appropriate medical authority after having rendered temporary service of not less than 10 years, or voluntary after the completion of 20 years of qualifying service, shall be eligible for grant of superannuation. Invalid or, as the case may be, Retiring Pension: Retirement Guaranty; and family Pension at the same scale as admissible to permanent Government Servant.)

Exception.---The rules regarding grant of terminals benefits to temporary Government servant (except those mentioned in the second proviso) who retire being confirmed in any post in Government service are embodied in Appendix II.

Note 1. If a Government servant is holding a temporary post when the permanent post on which he holds a lien is abolished in the circumstance described in Rule 81 or if, at or very shortly after the aboliti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document