Bombay High Court
Ashabai Subhash Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 13 September, 2022
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil, Sandeep V. Marne
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
910 WRIT PETITION NO.5530 OF 2019
Ashabai Subhash Patil .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Others .. Respondents
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Prakashsing B. Patil
AGP for Respondent / State : Mrs. R.P. Gour
Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 & 4 : Mr. V.V. Gujar
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
SANDEEP V. MARNE, JJ.
DATE : 13-09-2022
ORAL ORDER (PER SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) :
. By the present petition, the petitioner challenges the
order dated 15.03.2007 by which the penalty of removal from service
was imposed on the husband of the petitioner. The petitioner also
seeks prayer for grant of family pension / compassionate pension.
2. The petitioner's husband was appointed as Assistant
Teacher in Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon on 17.03.1992. He remained
unauthorizedly absent from 15.07.2003, on account of which
memorandum of Charge-sheet dated 04.12.2004 was served upon
him alleging unauthorized absence from 15.07.2003 to 03.12.2004.
After conducting disciplinary proceedings, order came to be passed
on 15.03.2007 imposing the punishment of removal from service on
her husband. Admittedly, the petitioner's husband did not file any
appeal against the said punishment order. He expired on 30.11.2015.
After his death, the petitioner applied for family pension, which
request was rejected by the Zilla Parisad on 31.07.2017. The
petitioner has accordingly filed this petition challenging the order of
removal from service passed on 15.03.2007.
3. Mr. Patil, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner
relied upon the judgment of this Court in Shakuntala Yuvraj Patil Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Others, Writ Petition No.145 of 2013
decided on 24.02.2018. We have gone through the said decision and
find that the same is distinguishable on several counts. Firstly, the
petitioner therein had put in unblemished service of more than 29
years. As against this, the service of the husband of the petitioner
was not unblemished as the Zilla Parishad has averred in its reply that
he was imposed punishment of stoppage of one increment in the year
1995. Another punishment of bringing down his pay to the basic of
the pay scale was also imposed on him. In para - 4 of the affidavit-in-
reply, the Zilla Parishad has given details of various periods during
which the petitioner's husband remained absent from the duty.
4. As against the period of 29 years of pensionable service
put in in the case of Shakuntala Yuvraj Patil (supra), the petitioner's
husband has put in service of only about 11 years before remaining
unauthorizedly absent. We, therefore, find that the decision in
Shakuntala Yuvraj Patil (supra) cannot be applied to the case of the
petitioner.
5. The petition suffers from latches as the petitioner's
husband never questioned the order of removal from service by
adopting departmental remedies nor challenged the same during his
life time. It is only after the death of her husband that the petitioner
has filed this petition on 28.06.2018 i.e. after a period of 11 long
years from the date of imposition of the penalty. In these
circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere in the order of
removal from service imposed on the husband of the petitioner.
6. Mr. Patil has relied upon Rule - 23 of the Maharashtra
Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the
'Rules of 1982') in support of the prayer for grant of compassionate
pension.
7. We find that during his life time the petitioner's husband
never made any application for grant of compassionate pension under
Rule - 23. Furthermore, the facts of the case are such that
compassionate pension could otherwise not have been sanctioned as
the petitioner's husband remained unauthorizedly absent for a long
period from 15.07.2003 till the date of his removal on 15.03.2007.
Even during the period from 1992 to 2003 he was frequently absent
from duty. We, therefore, do not find that any exceptional
circumstances exist for application of Rule - 23 of the Rules of 1982
for sanction of any compassionate pension. Therefore, the prayer of
the petitioner in this regard also deserves to be rejected.
8. The petition being devoid of merits is liable to be
dismissed and it is dismissed without any order as to costs.
( SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. ) ( MANGESH S. PATIL, J. )
GGP
