Court holds that compassionate pension under Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules is discretionary and cannot be granted to employees guilty of serious misconduct; delay in filing claim also fatal.
In a recent judgment dated October 19, 2026, the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissed the plea of Waman Shamrao Kulkarni seeking compassionate pension for the period from September 16, 1998, to August 6, 2004. Kulkarni, who served as a Havildar in the High Court of Judicature of Bombay, was removed from service on charges of theft and later dismissed on charges of fraud and misrepresentation.
The petitioner had approached the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, contending that compassionate pension should be granted for the period between his removal and dismissal. He also claimed parity, citing a similarly placed employee who was allegedly granted compassionate pension. However, the Court was not persuaded.
The Court analyzed Rule 101 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, which mandates forfeiture of pension and gratuity upon removal and explicitly bars dismissed employees from compassionate pension. While the Rule allows for compassionate pension in cases "deserving of special consideration," the Court emphasized that such discretion must be exercised strictly and sparingly.
Crucially, the Court held that an employee found guilty of theft in a Court establishment-a "temple of justice"-does not qualify as deserving special consideration. The length of prior service, even if 18 years, is insufficient to override the gravity of the misconduct. The Court further noted that the similarly placed employee cited by the petitioner had their benefits revoked, negating any claim of discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Additionally, the Court highlighted the significant delay in filing the petition-filed more than 15 years after the period in question and over 4 years after the rejection of a review application-deeming it an independent ground for denial.
The Court declined to consider allegations of the petitioner's involvement in a recruitment scam, observing that the reasons for rejecting compassionate pension were sufficient on their own.
This decision underscores the judiciary's strict approach to pension claims involving misconduct, reinforcing that compassionate pension is a privilege granted only in exceptional circumstances. It also serves as a caution against undue delays in approaching courts for relief.
Bottom Line:
Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 - Rule 101 - Government servant removed from service forfeits pension and gratuity - Compassionate pension is not a matter of right and can be granted only in cases deserving special consideration - Employee of Court removed on charge of theft not entitled to compassionate pension - Delay and laches also fatal to claim.
Statutory provision(s): Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 Rule 100, Rule 101; Constitution of India Article 14, Article 226
