IMPORTANT POINT
[Compassionate pension can be granted in exceptional circumstances even if the employee was dismissed, provided the dismissal does not involve moral turpitude or dishonesty.]

JUDGMENT/ORDER

SANJAY A.DESHMUKH, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. By this petition, the petitioners have prayed for granting of compassionate pension as petitioner No.1 is the widow of deceased Magan Damare, who had served with respondent No.3 as a Chaukidar / Watchman.

3. The petitioners contended that the husband of petitioner No.1 Magan Damare was serving as a watchman with respondent No.3 from 20/11/1981. Magan Damare had served for about 22 years. However, due to his unauthorised absenteeism, a departmental enquiry was held against him and on 6/3/2002, he was dismissed from service. Magan did not challenge that dismissal order. He died on 5/4/2012. Petitioner No.1 and her family members suffered mentally and economically as they lost their bread earner. Petitioner No.1 had no source of income. She applied for a copy of the service book of her husband and got it on 28/9/2012. On 16/11/2012, petitioner No.1 prayed for compassionate pension. However, by letter dtd. 21/11/2012, it was communicated to petitioner No.1 that, as per Rule 45 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 her husband was dismissed from service and therefore, she is not entitled for pension. Petitioner No.1 again applied to respondent No.3 for re-considering of her request of compassionate pension vide communication dtd. 19/2/2013. However, by letter dtd. 28/1/2014, it is informed to petitioner No.1 that her application was not favourably considered and rejected. The petitioners, therefore, prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dtd. 21/11/2012 and prayed for issuing a Writ of Mandamus to direct respondent No.3 to grant compassionate pension.

4. By the Affidavit in reply, respondent No.3 contended that the husband of petitioner No.1 was dismissed from service by order dtd. 6/3/2002 as per Rule 45 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. He was not entitled for pensionary benefits. Therefore, petitioner No.1 is also not entitled for the compassionate pension. It is lastly prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

5. We have considered the submissions of the learned advocates for the petitioners and respondent No.3 so also the learned AGP on behalf of the State.

6. In Mahinder Dutt Sharma Vs. Union of India and others, 2014 (11) SCC 684, it was held by the Honourable Supreme Court that punishment order would operate as a disqualifying clause for grant of compassionate pension. Rule 101 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 provides for compassionate pension. This Court, therefore, relegated the petitioner before the Competent Authority of the Municipal Corporation with a direction that the Corporation would consider the case of the petitioner since her deceased husband was removed from service and was not dismissed from service. In the present case, the husband of petitioner No.1, admittedly, dismissed from service, who is now no more. The dismissal of the husband of petitioner No.1 from service was not for any dishonest act or act of misappropriation or an act amounting to moral turpitude.

7. Sec. 56 (2) (g) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 reads as under :-

<WXY>"56. Imposition of penalties on municipal officers and servants. (2) The penalties which may be imposed under this Sec. are the following, namely :- (a) .... (b) .... (c) .... (d) .... (e) .... (f) .... (g) removal from municipal service which does not disqualify from future employment; (h) ...."</WXY>

8. Rule 101 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, reads as under:

<WXY>"101. Grant of Compassionate Pension in deserving cases by Government. (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 h