JAYSHREE NARAYAN MHASKE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. By consent of parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final hearing and decided finally.

(2.) Petitioner (the widow of the deceased employee) has preferred this writ petition, challenging the action of the respondents refusing to grant family pension to her and seeking directions to grant family pension to her.

(3.) Deceased Narayan Tikaram Mhaske was the husband of the petitioner and was appointed as part-time servant (i. e. Washerman) in the Primary Health centre, Kannad, on fixed pay of Rs. 30/- per month, by an order dated 1st April, 1971. Thereafter, he was taken on regular establishment by order dated 23rd june, 1983 as a Peon in Class-IV category in the pay scale of Rs. 200-3-230-5- 255-5-280. Because of his unauthorized absence from duties, a departmental enquiry was initiated against him and he was made to retire compulsorily by order dated 19th May, 1993 passed by the disciplinary authority, the respondent no. 2. His abovesaid absence was also regularised by the said order. It was also directed to accord sanction to his leave and submit a proposal of his pension. When his proposal was pending, he expired on 20th July, 1998. Thereafter, the present petitioner, the widow of Ex-Employee made representation for grant of family pension as well as for gratuity. By order dated 4th June, 1999, the respondent No. 3 granted gratuity of an amount of Rs. 4,083/ -. However, the petitioner's claim for family pension has been refused on the ground that her husband had rendered service less than ten years. She had, therefore, filed writ petition No. 3756/2001 in this court, but it was later on withdrawn by her, with a liberty to make representation to the respondents. Thereafter, the petitioner had made several representations; however, the same were turned down, on the same ground that she is not eligible to receive family pension as per the provisions of rule 110 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 [hereinafter referred to as "pension Rules"] as her husband had not rendered the minimum service of ten years. The petitioner has, therefore, preferred the present writ petition, seeking directions to the respondents to grant family pension to her.