IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7982 OF 2007. WRIT PETITION NO.7982 OF 2007. WRIT PETITION NO.7982 OF 2007. Manjula P. Ghodke ..Petitioner versus Union of India & Others ..Respondents Mr.A.P.Vanarse for the Petitioner Mr.T.J.Pandian for the State CORAM : D.K.DESHMUKH & CORAM : D.K.DESHMUKH & CORAM : D.K.DESHMUKH & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. R.Y.GANOO, JJ. R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATED : 10th June, 2008. DATED : 10th June, 2008. DATED : 10th June, 2008. P.C. 1. The petitioner’s husband was in service from 1961 to 1986. He was removed from service for absentism. He was reappointed in the year 1993. That was fresh appointment on temporary basis. He was in service till 2001. His widow applied for pension. That was not allowed by the Government, therefore CAT was approached. The CAT after considering all the relevant aspects has rejected the application. As the petitioner’s husband was removed from service for proved misconduct, the service rendered by him before imposition of the penalty obviously cannot be taken into consideration for any purpose including pension. The Tribunal has also given reasons as to why the -2- petitioner is not entitled for the compassionate allowance. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.296 of 2001Smt. Sumati Kolte vs. Union of India & Ors. Perusal of that judgment shows that direction was issued in that case is the facts and circumstances of that case. The Court found that the persons who were situated similarly to the petitioner were allowed compassionate allowance. Therefore, directions were issued. That judgment does not help the petitioner. The petition is therefore rejected. (D.K.Deshmukh, J.) (D.K.Deshmukh, J.) (D.K.Deshmukh, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.)