M. G. GAIKWAD, J.

( 1 ) RULE. By consent of parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final hearing and decided finally.

( 2 ) PETITIONER (the widow of the deceased employee) has preferred this writ petition, challenging the action of the respondents refusing to grant family pension to her and seeking directions to grant family pension to her.

( 3 ) DECEASED Narayan Tikaram Mhaske was the husband of the petitioner and was appointed as part-time servant (i. e. Washerman) in the Primary Health centre, Kannad, on fixed pay of Rs. 30/- per month, by an order dated 1st April, 1971. Thereafter, he was taken on regular establishment by order dated 23rd june, 1983 as a Peon in Class-IV category in the pay scale of Rs. 200-3-230-5- 255-5-280. Because of his unauthorized absence from duties, a departmental enquiry was initiated against him and he was made to retire compulsorily by order dated 19th May, 1993 passed by the disciplinary authority, the respondent no. 2. His abovesaid absence was also regularised by the said order. It was also directed to accord sanction to his leave and submit a proposal of his pension. When his proposal was pending, he expired on 20th July, 1998. Thereafter, the present petitioner, the widow of Ex-Employee made representation for grant of family pension as well as for gratuity. By order dated 4th June, 1999, the respondent No. 3 granted gratuity of an amount of Rs. 4,083/ -. However, the petitioner's claim for family pension has been refused on the ground that her husband had rendered service less than ten years. She had, therefore, filed writ petition No. 3756/2001 in this court, but it was later on withdrawn by her, with a liberty to make representation to the respondents. Thereafter, the petitioner had made several representations; however, the same were turned down, on the same ground that she is not eligible to receive family pension as per the provisions of rule 110 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 [hereinafter referred to as "pension Rules"] as her husband had not rendered the minimum service of ten years. The petitioner has, therefore, preferred the present writ petition, seeking directions to the respondents to grant family pension to her.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel Shri Vivek Dhage, appearing on behalf of the petitioner made submission that petitioner's husband (deceased employee) was appointed on 1st April, 1971 as a part-time peon and he was brought on regular establishment in 1983, but this period is not counted while deciding the pension claim of deceased employee, which needs to be counted under Rule 57 of the pension Rules. On the other hand, learned counsel Shri Kanade appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 made submission that the provisions of Rule 57 are not applicable to the petitioner's case as the said provisions are applicable in case of the part-time employee whose post has been subsequently converted into regular establishment. In view of these rival submissions, only point for our consideration is as to whether deceased employee had rendered qualifying service for the purpose of pension.

( 5 ) THERE is no controversy that the petitioner's husband was appointed as part-time employee in Class-IV category in 1971, vide appointment order dated 1st April, 1971. He was appointed on fixed pay of Rs. 30/- per month. The appointment order also mentions that his services are purely temporary and liable for termination at any time, without notice. In affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 4, it is admitted that deceased had worked as a part-time employee from 1-4-1971 to 27-6-1983. It is averred that his salary was paid out of contingency funds. He was appointed as a peon on 28-6-1983 and thereafter, he was compulsorily retired by order dated 19-5-1993. A contention has also been raised that the employee who is removed from service is not entitled for pension and gratuity as per the provisions under Rule 101 of