1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4756 OF 2008 Smt. Laxmibai w/o. Late Vaman Datar, Age 69 years, Occ. Nil, R/o. Basmatnagar, Tq. Basmatnagar, District Hingoli. .. Petitioner Versus The state of Maharashtra and others. .. Respondents Mr. J.N. Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.A.Shinde, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 3 and4 Mr. S.K. Tambe, AGP for respondent NO.1. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 4TH AUGUST, 2009. ORAL ORDER 1] By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 17 th October, 2007 vide which the State Government has refused to invoke the powers under Section 23 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1981. 2] The husband of the petitioner was appointed on 23 rd 2 December 1961 as Assistant Teacher. He was unauthorizedly absent from service between 31 st March, 1973 to 30th November 1992, i.e. Date of his superannuation. After the death of the husband of the petitioner, she filed an application on 18 th November, 1997, praying for grant of family pension. The application was rejected vide order dated 20 th December, 2003. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached this court by way of Writ Petition NO. 4285/2005. The said petition was allowed. The petitioner was granted liberty to make an application to the State Government and the State Government was directed to consider the said application. Again, the State Government has rejected the application vide order dated 17 th October, 2007. Being aggrieved thereby, the present petition. 3] Shri Singh the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the State of Maharashtra has erred in rejecting the application. It is submitted that since the husband of the petitioner was suffering from paralysis, he could not attend the duties and as such, in view of the provisions of Rule 23 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1981 r/w. Rule 110(2)(b) of the said Rules, it ought to have been considered that the petitioner’s husband had completed 10 years of qualifying service and as such, the petitioner was entitled for family pension. 4] From the perusal of Rule 23, it is clear that the Rule 23 3 permits the State Government to exercise discretion to provide pension in exceptional case. Rule 110(2)(b) would be applicable when a person retires on superannuation. In the present case, it can be seen from the material on record that the petitioner’s husband was continuously absent from 1973 till the date of his retirement i.e. 30 th November, 1992. From the record the authorities have found that there was neither any intimation nor any application for leave. It was therefore found that the period of absenteeism was of 10 years, 7 months and 29 days, that is, more than the period during which the petitioner’s husband served with the Zilla Parishad. 5] As already discussed hereinabove, the provision of Rule 23 is discretionary in nature. Unless the discretion exercised by the authority has been found to be exercised with perversity, it would not be permissible for this court to interfere with the same in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6] We do not find that the discretion exercised by the State Government under Rule 23 is exercised with perversity. Hence, the writ petition is rejected. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [B.R. GAVAI, J.] bsb/