1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 470 of 2006 Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Narayanibai V. Chandak Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri A. M. Quazi Adv. for appellant. Shri S. J. Kasat Adv. for respondent. CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. Dated: 3 rd March, 2008. Heard counsel for the appellant as well as respondent. Respondent had instituted a suit against the present appellant claiming pensionary benefits including pension. The husband of the respondent was in service of 2 the appellant. For quite some time before his retirement he was unwell. He had, therefore, submitted an application for voluntary retirement to the appellant. It is contended that since there was no provision of accepting the notice of voluntary retirement he was compulsorily retired by the appellant. After he came to be retired a Family Pension Scheme came into force with effect from 01.11.1999. It is not disputed that the appellant is otherwise entitled to family pension under the Act. The appellant had disputed the payment of pension to the respondent only on the ground that respondent's husband was compulsorily retired. Courts below have held that since there was no provision for voluntary retirement the employee was compulsorily 3 retired and he was entitled to the pensionary benefits including pension. There are two concurrent findings of fact. Shri Quazi learned counsel for the appellant contended that whenever an employee is compulsorily retired he is not entitled to get pension under the provisions of Pension Scheme 1995. Shri Kasat learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that the compulsory retirement was not by way of penalty. Therefore, there was no question of depriving the respondent of the pensionary benefits. Counsel for the appellant was directed to produce before this Court the copy of the order of the compulsory retirement. Such copy has not been produced before the Court inspite of chances having been granted. To my mind the Courts below were right in 4 decreeing the suit. It was incumbent on the part of the appellant to have shown that respondent was compulsorily retired due to some disciplinary action. Since no disciplinary action was contemplated and he was not compulsorily retired by way of disciplinary action he was certainly entitled to a pension under the Pension Scheme. I, therefore, find no substance in the appeal. No substantial question of law is involved. Appeal is dismissed in limine. JUDGE svk