Bombay High Court Dismisses Widow's Petition for Family Pension as Husband Was Removed from Service for Misappropriation. Removal Order Not Challenged, Hence No Entitlement to Pensionary Benefits.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: GOA In Favour of Prosecution
  • 75
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Meerabai Jhingaria Meshram, filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (respondent no.3) in O.A. No.608/1999 and R.P. 2001/2001, seeking a mandamus to direct the Union of India and the Divisional Railway Manager to pay family pension and other related benefits of her late husband, Jhingaria Bhagwati Meshram, who served as a Fitter Grade III and later as Engine Examiner with the South Eastern Railway. The husband was appointed on 14.5.1943 and transferred from Bilaspur to Nagpur on 18.11.1960. He was promoted as Engine Examiner w.e.f. 5.7.1969. However, he was removed from service from 11.4.1980 pursuant to a letter dated 04/09.04.1980 on the ground that he had misappropriated drum brass drawn for machining and use on Engine No.9641 on 3.7.1979. The removal order was never challenged by the husband. The court observed that since the husband was removed from service and the order was not challenged, the petitioner would not be entitled to pensionary benefits. The court found no infirmity in the impugned order of the Tribunal and dismissed the writ petition, discharging the rule with no order as to costs.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Pension - Family Pension - Entitlement - Removal from Service - The petitioner, widow of a railway employee removed from service for misappropriation of drum brass, claimed family pension. The court held that since the removal order was never challenged by the employee, the petitioner is not entitled to pensionary benefits. The writ petition challenging the Tribunal's order was dismissed. (Paras 1-4)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to family pension and related benefits of her late husband who was removed from service for misappropriation and did not challenge the removal order.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Writ petition dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Pensionary benefits not available to employee removed from service for misconduct
  • removal order unchallenged
  • no entitlement to family pension
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2014 LawText (BOM) (08) 128

WRIT PETITION NO.3405/2001

2014-08-28

A.P. Bhangale, C.V. Bhadang

Shri Badal Lonare for petitioner, Shri N.P. Lambat for respondent nos.1,2 and 4

Meerabai Jhingaria Meshram

Union of India, Divisional Railway Manager, Central Administrative Tribunal, General Manager

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

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging order of Central Administrative Tribunal denying family pension.

Remedy Sought

Mandamus to direct respondents to pay family pension and related benefits with interest.

Filing Reason

Petitioner's husband was removed from service for misappropriation; removal order unchallenged; petitioner claims family pension.

Previous Decisions

Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed O.A. No.608/1999 and R.P. 2001/2001.

Issues

Whether the petitioner is entitled to family pension when her husband was removed from service for misconduct and did not challenge the removal order.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued for family pension and benefits. Respondents opposed on ground that husband was removed from service and order was not challenged.

Ratio Decidendi

An employee removed from service for misconduct is not entitled to pensionary benefits, and the widow cannot claim family pension if the removal order was not challenged.

Judgment Excerpts

Since record indicates that the husband of the petitioner was removed from service, the petitioner would not be entitled for pensionary benefits and related benefits. That being so, we do not find any serious infirmity in the impugned order. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed O.A. No.608/1999 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, which was dismissed. Review petition R.P. 2001/2001 was also dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present writ petition before the High Court.

Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Widow's Petition for Family Pension as Husband Was Removed from Service for Misappropriation. Removal Order Not Challenged, Hence No Entitlement to Pensionary Benefits.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Disqualification Order in Gram Panchayat Member Case Due to Reliance on Unauthorized Report at Appellate Stage. Section 14(1)(j-3) of Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 Requires Conclusive Proof of Encroachment; Appellate A...