A dismissed government employee is ineligible for a compassionate pension under Rule 101 of the Pension Rules.

JUDGMENT (PER : Rohit B. Deo, J.)

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 :

“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 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.

(i) Respondent 2 failed to appreciate that the petitioner was not dismissed but was “removed” from service.

(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 L.R. 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 :

“26. Pension subject to good conduct.

(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 pen