Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH
ROHIT B. DEO, VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
Nalini W/o Natthuji Shende – Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 3468 of 2022
Decided On : 23-03-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302, 325 – Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 – Rule 101 – Offence of murder – Pension subject to good conduct – Penalties – Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt – Held, Court have noted supra that Discipline and Appeal Rules envisage different penalties. Removal from service without affecting chances of future employment under Government is one of penalties prescribed, in contradistinction with penalty of dismissal which renders Government servant ineligible for future employment under Government – Court have already noted, that even if removal of Government employee is under Rule 19, normal rule is that employee forfeits pension and gratuity, and it is only in cases deserving of special consideration, that there is an enabling power to sanction compassionate pension – In contradistinction, a dismissed Government servant is not eligible for compassionate pension – Court cannot, and will not, consider granting such relief on humanitarian or sympathetic considerations – Wide as writ jurisdiction is, statutory provisions cannot be ignored, and in a sense diluted, if not nullified – Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
ROHIT B. DEO, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of the parties.
2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 28-7-2021 rendered by respondent 2-Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur whereby the petitioner is held not entitled to pension under Rule 101 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (Pension Rules).
3. Rule 101 of the Pension Rules reads thus:
(1) A Government servant who is removed from service shall forfeit his pension and gratuity:
Provided that if the case is deserving of special consideration, Government may sanction a Compassionate Pension not exceeding two-thirds of pension or gratuity or both which would have been admissible to him if he had retired on compassionate pension.
(2) A compassionate pension sanctioned under the proviso to Sub-Rule (1) shall not be less than the minimum pension as fixed by Government.
(3) A dismissed Government servant is not eligible for Compassionate Pension.”
4. The communication-cum-order impugned observes that a dismissed employee is not eligible for compassionate pension.
5. Adverting to the facts, petitioner was appointed on temporary basis with Smt. Jankidevi Jaiswal Prathmik Vidyalay, Nagpur and was conferred permanency from 1-7-1996. The petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 10-7-2006.
6. We are not required to consider the merits of the challenge to the dismissal order, in as much as the petitioner's contention that she was denied opportunity of effective hearing and that the dismissal is mala-fide is rejected by the Tribunal which dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner, and Writ Petition 2417/2007 preferred by the petitioner challenging the judgment of the School Tribunal is dismissed by the High Court vide judgment dated 30-7-2015.
7. It appears that few years passed before the petitioner approached respondent 2 seeking pension under Rule 101 of the Pension Rules which claim is rejected by the order impugned.
8. We have heard learned counsel Mr. Akhilesh Potnis on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. N.S. Rao for respondents 1 to 3 and learned counsel Mr. A.D. Mohgaonkar for respondent 4.
9. Mr. Akhilesh Potnis canvasses the following submissions:
(ii) Respondent 2 failed to appreciate the provisions of Rule 62(6) of the Pension Rules.
(iii) Respondent 2 failed to appreciate that the petitioner is a destitute having no means of livelihood.
(iv) The termination of the petitioner is illegal.
(v) A coordinate Bench of the High Court has granted similar relief in Anna Deoram Londhe (Deceased) through his LRs. Smt. Indirabai W/o Anna Londhe vs. State of Maharashtra, 1998 (3) Mh. L.J. 435.
(vi) Rule 31 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (MEPS Rules) does not provide for punishment of dismissal. As a sequitur, a dismissed employee must be treated as terminated employee.
10. Before we consider the submissions canvassed by Mr. Akhilesh Potnis, we may extract provisions of Rules 26 and 27 of the Pension Rules, which read thus:
(1) Future good conduct shall be an implied condition of every grant of pension or family pension. Government may, by order in writing, withhold or withdraw a pension or family pension or part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period, if the petitioner or family pensioner is convicted of a serious crime or is found guilty of grave misconduct.
Provided that where a part of pension or family pension is withheld or withdrawn the amount of remaining pension or family pension shall not be reduced below the minimum pension or family pension as fixed by Government.
(2) Where a pensioner or family pensioner is convicted of a serious crime by a court of law, action under Sub-Rule (1) shall be ta
[Compassionate pension can be granted in exceptional circumstances even if the employee was dismissed, provided the dismissal does not involve moral turpitude or dishonesty.]
An employee removed from service for misconduct involving moral turpitude is not entitled to pension benefits under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982.
Point of law: The Government reserves to themselves the right of withholding a pension or gratuity, or both, either in full or in part, or withdrawing a pension in full or in part, whether permanentl....
Compassionate allowance should be granted if the case is deserving of special consideration, irrespective of the length of service rendered.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of compassionate allowance and pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 should consider the deserving nature of the case and is n....
The duty of a teacher to impart education and moral values to students, and the seriousness of the petitioner's offences, justified the withdrawal of his pension under Rule 27 of the M.C.S. (Pension)....
A government employee who resigns from service due to personal or domestic reasons without any pending disciplinary proceedings is entitled to proportionate pension under Rule 6.16(2), as the forfeit....
An employee removed from service, including by compulsory retirement due to misconduct, is not entitled to full pension under the Pension Scheme.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
