GODAVARI DIGAMBAR JONDHALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The husband of the petitioner was the employee of respondent-Municipal Corporation as a filed worker under Malaria Division. The husband of the petitioner was removed from service on account of continuous absenteeism. He eventually died. The petitioner claims compassionate pension within the meaning of Rule 101 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "Pension Rules ").

(2.) Shri. Salgare, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the husband of the petitioner was removed only on the ground of absenteeism and not for any misappropriation. In view of that, he is entitled for the benefit of Rule 101 of the Pension Rules. He relies on the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Mahinder Dutt Sharma Versus Union of India and Ors. reported in 2014(11) SCC 684.

(3.) Shri. Ingole, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that, as the petitioner has been removed from the service, he is not entitled for compassionate pension.