1 W.P. No. 248/1999 - ( J ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 248 OF 1999 Smt. Kasubai Vedu Patil Age : Major, Occ. R/o : Dhadne, Tq. Sakri, Dist. Dhule. .... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Zilla Parishad, Dhule Through its Chief Executive Officer, Dhule. 2. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Dhule. 3. Block Development Officer Panchayat Samiti, Navapur, Dist. Dhule. 4. The State of Maharashtra Through Govt. Pleader High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad. .... RESPONDENTS 2 W.P. No. 248/1999 - ( J ) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. L.V.Sangit, Advocate holding for Mr. V.J.Dixit, Advocate for petitioner. Mrs.R.K.Ladda, Assistant Govt. Pleader for State. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE: 03/08/2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : [ PER - S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] 1. By the present petition, the petitioner claims grant of family pension on the count that the deceased husband of the petitioner had rendered service with the respondent – Zilla Parishad from 5/10/1948 to 1/9/1972. The husband of the petitioner was due for retirement on 31/10/1985 and subsequently expired on 15/6/1995. 2. Mr. Sangit, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as Mr. Vedu Patil had rendered service since 1948 to 1972, he would be entitled for pension on the ground that he has rendered the qualifying service interalia the petitioner would also be entitled for the family pension. 3. The respondents have filed their affidavit and have stated that 3 W.P. No. 248/1999 - ( J ) since 4/9/1972, Mr. Vedu Patil was unauthorizedly absent and since 4/9/1972 he did not report on duty. As he was unauthorizedly absent, the same amounts to break in service and hence the employee has lost his right on earlier service. 4. Mr. Sangit also contends that Mr. Vedu Patil has tendered his resignation and in view of that, he would be entitled for pension. 5. Perusal of Rule 46 of the Maharashtra Civil Services ( Pension ) Rules, 1982 makes it clear that resignation from service or the post entails fore-feature of past service and Rule 47 of the said Rules lay down that an interruption in the service of Govt. servant entails fore-feature of his past service. Taking either of the case put forth by the petitioner, deceased Vedu Patil would not be entitled for pension, interalia the petitioner also could not be entitled for any family pension. 6. Mr. Sangit, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner shall be entitled for the Provident Fund and other benefits. The petitioner may make an application to that effect with the authority concerned, who would consider the same in accordance with law. 7. In the light of above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Rule is discharged. 4 W.P. No. 248/1999 - ( J ) 8. In In view of disposal of Writ Petition, Civil Applications does not survives and as such disposed off. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] [ B.R. GAVAI ] JUDGE JUDGE knp/ WP 248.99