Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Nalini Shende, was appointed as a temporary teacher at Smt. Jankidevi Jaiswal Prathmik Vidyalaya, Nagpur, and was granted permanency from 1 July 1996. She was dismissed from service on 10 July 2006. Subsequently, she applied for compassionate pension under Rule 101 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. The Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur, by order dated 28 July 2021, rejected her claim, holding that a dismissed employee is not eligible for compassionate pension. The petitioner challenged this order before the Bombay High Court at Nagpur. The Court examined Rule 101, which states that a government servant removed from service forfeits pension and gratuity, but the proviso allows the Government to sanction a compassionate pension in deserving cases. The Court noted that the impugned order erroneously treated the petitioner as dismissed, whereas the order of termination was one of removal. The Court emphasized the distinction between removal and dismissal under service law, holding that removal does not bar compassionate pension. The Court set aside the impugned order and directed the Deputy Director of Education to reconsider the petitioner's application afresh, applying the correct legal position and considering whether the case deserves special consideration for compassionate pension. The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Compassionate Pension - Removal vs Dismissal - Rule 101 Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 - The petitioner was removed from service, not dismissed. The Deputy Director of Education erroneously held that a dismissed employee is not eligible for compassionate pension, ignoring the distinction between removal and dismissal. The Court held that removal does not disqualify a government servant from compassionate pension under Rule 101(1) proviso, and the authority must consider the case on merits for special consideration. (Paras 2-8)
B) Service Law - Compassionate Pension - Forfeiture of Pension - Rule 101(1) Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 - A government servant removed from service forfeits pension and gratuity, but the proviso allows Government to sanction compassionate pension in deserving cases. The Court held that the authority must apply its mind to whether the case deserves special consideration, and cannot reject solely on the ground of dismissal when the employee was removed. (Paras 3-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a government servant who is removed from service is entitled to compassionate pension under Rule 101 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, and whether the distinction between 'removal' and 'dismissal' affects eligibility.
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 28-7-2021 is quashed and set aside. The Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur, is directed to reconsider the petitioner's application for compassionate pension afresh, in light of the observations made in the judgment, within four weeks from the date of the order. The petition is allowed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Compassionate pension
- Removal vs Dismissal
- Rule 101 Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1982
- Forfeiture of pension
- Special consideration
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (03) 131
Writ Petition No. 3468 of 2022
Rohit B. Deo, Mrs. Vrushali V. Joshi
Mr. A. A. Potnis for petitioner, Mr. N. S. Rao for respondents 1 to 3, Mr. A. D. Mohgaonkar for respondent 4
Nalini W/o Natthuji Shende
State of Maharashtra, Deputy Director of Education, Education Officer, Headmistress of Smt Jankidevi Jaiswal Prathmik Vidyalaya
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging order denying compassionate pension to a removed government servant.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of order dated 28-7-2021 and direction to grant compassionate pension.
Filing Reason
Petitioner was removed from service and her claim for compassionate pension was rejected on the ground that dismissed employees are not eligible.
Previous Decisions
Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur, by order dated 28-7-2021, held petitioner not entitled to compassionate pension under Rule 101.
Issues
Whether the petitioner, who was removed from service, is entitled to compassionate pension under Rule 101 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982.
Whether the impugned order erroneously treated removal as dismissal and failed to consider the proviso to Rule 101(1).
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that she was removed, not dismissed, and therefore eligible for compassionate pension under Rule 101 proviso.
Respondents contended that the petitioner was dismissed and thus not eligible for compassionate pension.
Ratio Decidendi
A government servant removed from service is not automatically disentitled to compassionate pension under Rule 101 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. The proviso to Rule 101(1) allows the Government to sanction compassionate pension in deserving cases even upon removal. The distinction between removal and dismissal is significant; dismissal disqualifies, but removal does not. The authority must consider the case on merits for special consideration.
Judgment Excerpts
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.'
The communication-cum-order impugned observes that a dismissed employee is not eligible for compassionate pension.
The petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 10-7-2006.
The impugned order proceeds on the premise that the petitioner is dismissed and therefore not entitled to compassionate pension. The order does not consider the distinction between removal and dismissal.
Procedural History
Petitioner was appointed on temporary basis and granted permanency from 1-7-1996. She was dismissed on 10-7-2006. She applied for compassionate pension under Rule 101. Deputy Director of Education rejected her claim on 28-7-2021. She filed Writ Petition No. 3468 of 2022 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, which was heard and allowed on 23-3-2023.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982: Rule 101
