THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY DATED: 30-08-2005 WRIT PETITION No.19034 OF 2005 Between: Smt. Asifa @ Khaja Bhee . . .Petitioner And The Govt. of A.P. and others . . .Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19034 OF 2005 O R D E R: The husband of the petitioner was employed as a Constable in the Government of Nizam with effect from 10-11-1942. He was dismissed from service on certain charges of misconduct through orders dated 27-02-1956. Aggrieved thereby, he filed O.S.No.81 of 1965 in the court of III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad at Secunderabad. Through its judgment dated 24-12-1968, the trial Court dismissed the suit and the decree became final. The husband of the petitioner made several representations to the respondents herein for grant of pension. At one stage, the second respondent addressed a letter dated 08-05-2001 to the first respondent recommending sanction of atleast a fraction of the pension with certain benefits. However, the first respondent rejected the same through its letter dated 06-12-2001. It was observed that it is impermissible under the Rules to sanction pension to a dismissed employee. The husband of the petitioner filed O.A.No.1736 of 2002 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, assailing the order dated 06-12- 2001 passed by the first respondent. The O.A. was disposed of through order dated 08-02-2002 holding that the applicant has no legal right to claim pension, but all the same, left it open to the first respondent to consider the matter sympathetically. Thereafter, the first respondent passed a memo dated 13-05- 2002 refusing to reconsider its orders passed on 06-12-2001. The husband of the petitioner died in the meanwhile. This writ petition is filed with a prayer to declare the memo dated 13-05-2002 issued by the first respondent as illegal and to direct it to act upon the recommendations of respondents 2 and 3 for sanction of compassionate allowance and pensionary benefits. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home. Basically, the writ petition is not maintainable since it relates to the service of the husband of the petitioner. However, even if it is considered on merits, this Court does not find any basis to grant any relief to the petitioner. The husband of the petitioner was, admittedly, dismissed from service about half a century ago. The order was upheld in a suit filed by him. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to place before this Court, any rule or provision, which enables the Government to sanction pension to a dismissed employee. Further, there is nothing like compassionate pension under the relevant Rules. As held by the Supreme Court, pension is a right to property and it is to be based on specific provisions. Sympathies of any officials in the Government have hardly any role to play in this regard. It is not as if either the claim of the petitioner or the recommendations of respondents 2 and 3 are based on any provisions of law. At any rate, the claim is stale by a half century. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. _________________________ (L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J) 30th AUGUST, 2005. kvni