ANNA DEORAM LONDHE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner (since deceased) had joined services as Assistant Teacher on 1-7-1943 and he worked till the date of his removal from service on account of his conviction for offence under sections 302, 323, 147 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, which was altered by the High Court in appeal under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years. The incident had taken place on 4-5-1975 on account of family feud over the land Survey No. 46/2. The petitioner (since deceased) was, however, removed from service w. e. f. 18-1-1975 by reason of his conviction. The petitioner has challenged the order of removal by filing a special civil suit but he could not succeed in trial Court as well as in the Appellate Court. He filed his special leave petition before the Supreme Court. The Apex Court, while dismissing the special leave petition, however, granted liberty to the petitioner (since deceased) to make a representation to the Government that in spite of his removal he was entitled to compassionate pension under Rule 100 read with Rule 101 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982.

(2.) THE petitioner accordingly made his representation on 13-3-1993 but his representation came to be rejected, vide communication received by the petitioner (since deceased) on 25-1-1994 from the respondent No. 3.

(3.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner, therefore, challenges the rejection of his representation for compassionate pension, inter alia on the ground that there has been non application of mind by concerned authority in not considering his case under the relevant Rules for grant of compassionate pension. The copy of communication received by the petitioner dated 1-11-1993 is produced at page No. 66. It is clear that it lacks reasoning for rejection of the petitioners representation except by recording a fact that he was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by Sessions Court on 7-7-1976 and in his appeal, sentence was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for four years with a fine of Rs. 500 under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code.