Shankarlal Nandkishore Dhamat vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr.
2002 Latest Caselaw 919 Bom

JUDGMENT

R.K. Batta, J.

1. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court for directions to respondent No. 2 to give the terminal benefits including pension. The petitioner was appointed on daily wages on 25-7-1977 and he was regularised in the post of Clerk with effect from 15-3-1979. The petitioner retired on 31-1-1988. The petitioner was not paid pension benefits on the ground that he had not completed ten years of service. The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court seeking directions as aforesaid.

2. We have heard learned Advocate for the petitioner, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 2 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent No. 1.

3. There is no dispute regarding the admitted facts which have been enumerated above. According to the learned Advocate for the respondent No. 2, the total pensionable service of the petitioner, in accordance with the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), comes to 9 years, 8 months and 15 days, on account of which, the petitioner is not entitled to any pension. Rule 110(2)(b) provides as under:

Rule 110(1) ...........

(2) (a) .....................

(b) In the case of a Government servant retiring on Superannuation, Retiring Invalid or Compensation Pension in accordance with the provisions of these Rules before completing qualifying service of thirty-three years but after completing qualifying service of ten years, the amount of pension shall be proportionate to the amount of pension admissible under Clause (a) and in no case the amount of pension shall be less than (rupees three hundred and seventy-five) per mensem.

Note 1 under Rule 57 of the Rules provides that, in case of employees paid from contingencies who are subsequently brought on a regular pensionable establishment by conversion of their posts, one-half of their previous continuous service shall be allowed to count for pension. Taking these two provisions into account, the total service of the petitioner comes to 9 years 8 months and 15 days. The petitioner is stated to be a physically handicapped person inasmuch as he is suffering from paralysis. Rule 4 of the Pension Rules provides for relaxation and the Rule reads as under:

Rule 4: Power of relaxation:

"Where Government is satisfied that the operation of any of these Rules causes or is likely to cause undue hardship in the case of any Government servant or class of Government servants, it may, by an order in writing, exempt any such Government servant or class of Government servants from any provisions of these Rules or may direct that such provision shall apply to such Government servants or class of Government servants with such modifications not affecting the substance thereof, as may be specified in such order."

4. In addition to this, Rule 54 of the Rules provides for condonation of deficiency and addition in service to the extent of one year. The said Rule reads as under:

Rule 54: Condonation of deficiency and addition in service.--Government may, for special reasons to be recorded in writing-

(1) condone a deficiency, which may not ordinarily exceed one year, in the period of service qualifying for pension performed by a Government servant in order to qualify him to receive a retiring pension or to receive a pension as distinct from the gratuity; or

(2) make an addition, which may not ordinarily exceed one year, to the period of service qualifying for pension, performed by a retiring Government servant which under the provisions of these Rules may be counted for pension.

5. Keeping in view the spirit behind the provisions of Rule 4 and Rule 54, it is considered necessary that the respondent No. 2 should consider the case of the petitioner for pensionary benefits under the said Rules. The respondent No. 2 shall, therefore, take decision in the matter in the light of observations made in this order within a period of six weeks and communicate the order passed to the petitioner. In case the petitioner is still aggrieved after the order is passed by respondent No. 2, the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the Court once again. The respondent No. 2 shall file compliance report at the end of six weeks before this Court. The matter be listed for orders only on compliance report.

6. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed in aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.

7. Steno copy duly authenticated by Section Officer be handed over to learned Advocate for petitioner and the respondent No. 2.