1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2636 OF 1998 Uttam Vedu Chambhar .... PETITIONER VERSUS State of Maharashtra & Oths. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. K.B.Choudhari, Assistant Govt. Pleader for State. Mr. A.B.Girase, Advocate for respondent no. 3 & 4. ............................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE: 09/08/2010 ORDER ORDER : 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for directing respondents to grant pension and all other benefits as he retired on 31/3/1986. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Primary Teacher in respondent no. 3 – Zilla Parishad, Dhule on 28/7/1949. According to the petitioner, 2 since he suffered from mental infirmity, he proceeded on leave as per the advise given by the Civil Surgeon March, 1964. In 1998-99, the petitioner requested respondent no. 3 for taking steps to grant him pension. According to the petitioner, an enquiry was directed by respondent no. 4. Since respondent did not take any steps to grant pension to the petitioner, the petitioner approached learned Consumer Forum, which declined to entertain the petition. The petitioner, therefore, approached this Court. 3. In the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent – Zilla Parishad, it has been stated that the petitioner was working from 28/7/1949 to 28/2/1966 and thereafter was continuously absent from duties till the date of his retirement i.e. 31/3/1989. It is submitted that the petitioner had not made any application for grant of leave. 4. It is contended on behalf of respondent – Zilla Parishad that the petitioner was absent from duties from 1/3/1964 without any intimation. It is submitted that as per Rule 33 of Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959, for absence more than 3 years, his services stand automatically terminated. It is the case of the respondents that, therefore, the petitioner’s services stood terminated from 1/3/1967. It is also submitted on behalf of respondent – Zilla Parishad that the proposal for condonation of break in service from 1/3/1964 till the date of retirement was submitted to the Govt. of 3 Maharashtra. However, the same was rejected. 5. In so far as the claim of the petitioner for pension is concerned, it is submitted by the State that since the petitioner had not taken voluntary retirement on account of his physical inability to continue work, is not entitled to any pension also. 6. We find that no error could be found in the stand taken by the respondent – Zilla Parishad. The petitioner was unauthorizedly absent from 1964 and has approached the authorities after about 28 years i.e. in the year 1990, is not entitled to any relief. The petition is without any merit. As such, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] [ B.R. GAVAI ] JUDGE JUDGE knp/WP 2636.98 4