1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7766 OF 2008 Najma Shahabuddin Shaikh. ... .... Petitioner. Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... .... Respondents. Mr. Vishal Kanade i/by Mr. A.V.Borawankar for the Petitioner. Mrs. M. P. Thakur, AGP for the State. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI and J. H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED : 19 th DECEMBER, 2008. P.C.: The petitioner was working as a Judge of the Family Court in the State of Maharashtra for a period of about 6 years and 2 months. As per the service rules for the purpose of grant of pension, qualifying service should be not less than 10 years. According to the petitioner, in view of certain Government Resolutions issued by the Government of Maharashtra in the year 2005 for the purpose of implementation of the Shetty Commission Report, as approved by the Supreme Court, she is entitled to get pension even though she has not put in minimum of 10 years service. 2. The counter affidavit has been filed by Mrs. Kalyanpur, Registrar (Legal) of this High Court, wherein it is specifically mentioned that as per 2 Rule 110(2)(b) of the Maharashtra Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1982, the qualifying service for getting pension is 10 years. The said Rule reads as under: "In the case of a Government servant retiring on Superannuation, Retiring invalid or Compensation Pension in accordance with the provisions of these rules before completing qualifying service of thirty-three years but after completing qualifying service of ten years, the amount of pension shall be proportionate to the amount of pension admission under clause (a) and in no case the amount of pension shall be less than rupees three hundred and seven five per mensem.” 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to the Government Resolution dated 28th September, 2005 in support of her claim. However, on perusal of that Government Resolution, we find that it was issued only for the purpose of increase in the limit of commutation of pension from 40% to 50% in respect of the Judicial Officers. He also referred to another Government Resolution dated 26th December, 2006. However, that Government Resolution only provides that a Judicial Officer who has put in full service i.e. 33 years, will be entitled to get 50% of pay as pension with D. A. and in case he has not put in 33 years of service, he will be entitled to get pension proportionately to the number of years of the service put in by him. That Government Resolution no where states that the qualifying service for pension was also reduced to less than 10 years. In our considered opinion, these two Government Resolutions do not modify or amend Rule 110(2)(b) 3 of the Maharashtra Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1982. As the petitioner has not put in minimum 10 years of qualifying service for getting pension, she is not entitled to the same. 4. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the writ petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (BILAL NAZKI, J.) Sd/- (J. H. BHATIA, J.)