SAROJ Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

(2.) By this petition, the petitioners have prayed for granting of compassionate pension as petitioner No.1 is the widow of deceased Magan Damare, who had served with respondent No.3 as a Chaukidar / Watchman.

(3.) The petitioners contended that the husband of petitioner No.1 Magan Damare was serving as a watchman with respondent No.3 from 20/11/1981. Magan Damare had served for about 22 years. However, due to his unauthorised absenteeism, a departmental enquiry was held against him and on 6/3/2002, he was dismissed from service. Magan did not challenge that dismissal order. He died on 5/4/2012. Petitioner No.1 and her family members suffered mentally and economically as they lost their bread earner. Petitioner No.1 had no source of income. She applied for a copy of the service book of her husband and got it on 28/9/2012. On 16/11/2012, petitioner No.1 prayed for compassionate pension. However, by letter dtd. 21/11/2012, it was communicated to petitioner No.1 that, as per Rule 45 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 her husband was dismissed from service and therefore, she is not entitled for pension. Petitioner No.1 again applied to respondent No.3 for re-considering of her request of compassionate pension vide communication dtd. 19/2/2013. However, by letter dtd. 28/1/2014, it is informed to petitioner No.1 that her application was not favourably considered and rejected. The petitioners, therefore, prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dtd. 21/11/2012 and prayed for issuing a Writ of Mandamus to direct respondent No.3 to grant compassionate pension.