Entitlement to medical pensionary benefits under specific pension rules is subject to the conditions and provisions outlined in the rules, and a causal link between the accident and the retirement must be established.

1. Heard Shri P.V. Barde, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Shri S.T. Shelke, learned counsel for the Respondent.

2. The Petitioner is wife of deceased employee – Shivaji Dolas.

3. The deceased joined employment on 7th April, 1967 as a Mixer Attendant with the Respondent. While on duty, the deceased suffered an accident on 23rd October, 1967 resulting into amputation of his right hand wrist. The Respondent paid him compensation and continued him by giving an alternate job of oilman. The deceased performed his duties as an oilman till 1992.

4. According to the Petitioner, in 1990, after attaining the age of 55, he was referred to the medical board, which found him medially unfit for work. The deceased retired from services due to such unfit certification by the Medial Authorities.

5. The deceased demanded medical pensionary benefits, which are more than the normal pensionary benefits available to an employee under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. Since the same was not given, the deceased filed Complaint (ULP) No. 148 of 1998 before the Industrial Court, at Ahmednagar.

6. The said complaint was dismissed by an order dated 9th November, 2010, which was questioned before this Court in Writ Petition No.3770 of 2011 by the Petitioner herself since the husband of the Petitioner died on 25th October, 2004.

7. This Court while dealing with the above said challenge, has recorded the submissions of the Petitioner in paragraph Nos.3 and 4 of its order dated 31st January, 2012, which are as under:

“3 Mr. Barde, learned Counsel for the original employee ( husband of petitioner Suman) has placed before me communication dated 20.12.1990 by the Executive Engineer, Zilla Parishad, and consequent thereupon, on 25th March, 1991, Shivaji D. Dolas (original petitioner) was examined and the report of the Reader, Head of the Department, illustrate, said Shivaji is unfit to do the job of Oilman.

4. According to learned Counsel, the retirement of 1992, is consequent upon such medical examination. This should have been considered by the authorities. The case of the petitioner squarely comes within the bracket of Rule 62 in Chapter (VII) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, which provides classes of pension and conditions governing their grant. In Rule 62 subclass (3) invalid pension is attributed and, according to learned Counsel, the petitioner was eligible to seek a claim under invalid pension. The retiral benefits extended to him are like regular employee retiring from service or on voluntary basis.”

8. This Court therefore, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar to decide Complaint (ULP) No.148 of 1998 in light of the observations made in paragraph Nos.3 and 4 of its order.

9. The Industrial Court, Ahmednagar considered Complaint (ULP) No.148 of 1998 and vide its judgment and order dated 22nd June, 2012, rejected the complaint on two counts. Firstly, that the deceased was not entitled to the medical pensionary benefits and secondly, that the complaint was barred by limitation. It is this judgment that has been impugned by the Petitioner in this petition.

10. Shri Barde, learned counsel for the Petitioner further contends that the learned Industrial Court has failed in its duties in view of the clear directions given by this Court in its earlier order in Writ Petition No.3770 of 2011. According to him, the oral and documentary evidence placed before the Court has not been considered in its proper perspective. The medically unfit certificate given by the Medical Board is not considered. There is a nexus on medical grounds between the accident and the retirement of the deceased. He, therefore, submitted that the retirement of the deceased has to be logically taken to have been caused by the accident.

11. Shri Shelke, learned counsel for the Respondent disputes the submissions of the Petitioner. He states that after the accident dated 23rd October, 1967