: 1 : wp-2929-11=.doc USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2929 OF 2011 Jaysing Baburao Ghugare .. Petitioner v/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents ......... Mr. V.K. Jagdale for the petitioner Mr. P.P. Kakade, AGP for respondent nos. 1 to 4. ......... CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATE : 30th JUNE 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. This petition takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 16th December, 2010 in Original Application No.97 of 2010. The petitioner had filed the said Original Application for direction against the respondent to grant him compassionate pension w.e.f. 3rd October, 1991. It is common ground that the petitioner stood retired from service on 3rd October, 1991. Further, the petitioner was proceeded by way of departmental action on charges of lack of integrity and dutifulness and of negligence. In view of the seriousness of the : 2 : wp-2929-11=.doc charges, which were proved against the petitioner, the petitioner was denied the benefit of compassionate pension in terms of Rule 100 as it stood prior to 1994. The same reads thus :- “100. Grant of Compassionate Pension. (1)A Government servant who is removed or required to retire from Government Service for misconduct or insolvency shall be granted no pension other than a Compassionate Pension. (2)A Government servant who is removed or required to retire from Government service on the ground of inefficiency, shall, if he be eligible for a superannuation, or retiring pension, be granted such pension. If he is not eligible for a superannuation or retiring pension he shall be granted no pension other than a Compassionate Pension”. It may be also useful to refer to Rule 101, as it stood prior to 1994, which is applicable to the present case. The same reads thus:- “101. Grant of Compassionate Pension in deserving cases by Government. (1)When a Government servant is removed or required to retire from Government Service for misconduct or insolvency or is removed or required to retire from Government service on grounds of inefficiency before he is eligible for a Retiring or Superannuation Pension, Government may, if the case is considered deserving of : 3 : wp-2929-11=.doc special treatment, sanction the grant to him of a Compassionate Pension. (2) A dismissed Government servant is not eligible for Compassionate Pension”. 2. On plain reading of the aforesaid Rules, the Tribunal has rightly found that grant of compassionate pension cannot be said to be matter of right. It was the discretion of the Government to extend the said compassionate pension facility to a Government Servant, who has been removed or required to retire from Government Services for misconduct. Thus, it was the discretion of the Government to grant or refuse to grant compassionate pension to the petitioner. In the present case, the Government, on affidavit has placed on record before the Tribunal as well as reiterated before this Court that the petitioner’s case was considered and the appropriate Authority decided not to grant compassionate pension to the petitioner as he stood retired from the Government Service for misconduct and was not deserving of special treatment. Counsel for the petitioner was at pains to persuade us to take the view that the provision contained in Rule 100(1) at page 133, it is in the nature of mandate to grant compassionate pension. It is not possible to accept this argument. The said Rule cannot be read in isolation, it will have to read conjointly with Rule 101, which governs the situation of grant of compassionate pension only in cases deserving : 4 : wp-2929-11=.doc special treatment. This is the conclusion reached by the Tribunal, with which we are in complete agreement. Hence, no interference is warranted. 3. Petition dismissed accordingly. (R.Y.GANOO, J.) (A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.)