Bombay High Court Dismisses Teacher's Pension Claim Due to Unauthorized Absence — Continuous Absence Without Leave or Removal Order Does Not Entitle to Pension Under Rule 47 of Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution
  • 3
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Malhari Ragho Mahale, was appointed as a teacher in the Nashik Zilla Parishad with effect from 11.4.1949. His date of birth was recorded as 15.9.1929. He served continuously from 11.4.1949 to 1.7.1970. Thereafter, he remained absent unauthorizedly until his date of superannuation, i.e., 30.9.1987. On 19.1.1992, he applied for pension, which was rejected. The petitioner challenged this rejection by way of a writ petition. The court noted that the petitioner did not apply for leave and no leave was granted. No disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him for unauthorized absence, and no order of removal was passed. The court held that the writ petition was wholly devoid of merit. The court observed that the petitioner remained absent continuously after 30.6.1970 and did not even claim that he applied for leave. The court found that the rejection of the pension application was correct. The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner was not entitled to pension under Rule 47 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, as his unauthorized absence did not constitute service.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Pension - Unauthorized Absence - Rule 47 of Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 - Petitioner remained absent unauthorizedly from 1.7.1970 until superannuation on 30.9.1987 without applying for leave or being removed - Held that such absence does not constitute service and disentitles the petitioner to pension, as pension is earned only by actual service or deemed service under the rules (Paras 2-4).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether a teacher who remained absent unauthorizedly for over 17 years without any leave or removal order is entitled to pension under Rule 47 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is not entitled to pension.

Law Points

  • Pension entitlement requires actual service or deemed service
  • unauthorized absence without leave or removal order does not constitute service
  • Rule 47 of Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules
  • 1982
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2005 LawText (BOM) (04) 8

Writ Petition No.5071 of 2000

2005-04-15

R.M. Lodha, R.S. Mohite

Mr.Vinod Sahuji i/by Mr.P.B.Shah for the petitioner, Mr.R.M.Patne, Assistant Government Pleader for State

Malhari Ragho Mahale

The State of Maharashtra, Chief Officer, Zilla Parishad, Commissioner, Nashik Division

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging rejection of pension application

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought pension for his service as teacher

Filing Reason

Petitioner's application for pension was rejected by the respondents

Issues

Whether the petitioner is entitled to pension under Rule 47 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 despite unauthorized absence from 1.7.1970 to 30.9.1987.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that he was entitled to pension as he served from 11.4.1949 to 1.7.1970 and no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. Respondents argued that the petitioner remained absent unauthorizedly and did not apply for leave, thus not entitled to pension.

Ratio Decidendi

A government servant who remains absent unauthorizedly without leave or removal order is not entitled to pension, as pension is earned only by actual service or deemed service under the rules.

Judgment Excerpts

The writ petition is wholly devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. It is not even the petitioner’s case that he applied for leave and that leave was granted. There is no order of removal passed by the competent authority removing the petitioner from service.

Procedural History

Petitioner applied for pension on 19.1.1992, which was rejected. He then filed Writ Petition No.5071 of 2000 before the Bombay High Court challenging the rejection.

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982: Rule 47
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging Nagar Panchayat Notification Under Section 341A of Maharashtra Municipal Councils Act. State Government's Discretion to Determine Area of Nagar Panchayat Upheld; No Obligation to Include All Surrounding Gra...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Gujarat Enhances Compensation for Injured Pedestrian in Motor Accident Claim. Tribunal's assessment of functional disability and future loss of income revised; compensation increased from Rs.4,05,500/- to Rs.6,42,700/-.