Court Employee Found Guilty Of Theft Not “Deserving Of Special Consideration” For Compassionate Pension Under Rule 101 MCSR, 1982: Bombay High Court

The Division Bench dismissed the writ petition of a former Havildar, and held that the proviso must be interpreted very strictly, that 18 years of service before removal is no ground for special consideration, and that a delay of about 15 years independently barred relief.

A Bench of Justice Kishore C. Sant and Justice Jitendra Jain observed, “In our view, a person working in a Court who is charged with and found guilty of theft would certainly not fall within the expression “deserving of special consideration” used in the proviso to Rule 101. The contention of the petitioner that he has spent 18 years in service prior to his removal, cannot a ground which will fall within the expression “special consideration” required under proviso to Rule 101(1) of the Pension Rules”.

Advocate Neha B. Kamble for the petitioner and Senior Advocate Rajendrraa Deshmukkh appeared for the respondent.

The petitioner was appointed a peon in 1981 and later promoted Havildar in the respondent’s establishment. On September 16, 1998, he was removed from service after being found guilty of theft, the charge being the removal of a typewriter from the Advocates’ Clerks’ Room without permission. This Court confirmed the removal on May 20, 1999.

He was dismissed on August 6, 2004 in a separate inquiry for misrepresentation and fraud, and his review was rejected on February 11, 2015. His earlier application for compassionate pension, made on March 26, 2003, was rejected on August 16, 2003. He moved the Court in August 2019 seeking pension for the period from removal to dismissal, with interest. He argued that removal differs from dismissal and pleaded parity with a co-delinquent, Mr. Shrikant Nigvekar. The respondent said Mr. Nigvekar’s benefits were later revoked.

The Court held that Rule 101(3), which bars dismissed servants, did not arise because the claim covered only the interim period. It held, however, that sub-rule (1) mandates forfeiture on removal, and that the proviso is a discretionary exception exercisable on the employer’s satisfaction.

“Rule 101(1) provides for forfeiture of pension in the case of a Government servant who is removed from service. There is no dispute that on 16th September 1998, the petitioner was removed from service. Sub-rule (1) uses the expression "shall" and, looking at the context and the object of Rule 101, the Rule has to be construed as a mandatory provision for forfeiture of pension and gratuity”, it noted.

“However, an exception is carved out by the proviso to sub-rule (1), which provides that if the case is deserving of special consideration, then compassionate pension can be granted. The exercise of discretion is not mandatory but would be on the satisfaction of the employer. The condition to grant pension under the proviso is not only of deserving but deserving of special consideration, which is to be interpreted very strictly. Therefore, the issue which requires consideration is whether, in the facts of the present case, the case deserves special consideration”, it said further.

Accordingly, the respondent had passed a reasoned order, and the decision-making process was not challenged, it noted and found no perversity or unreasonable exercise of discretion, furthermore, the decisions cited by the petitioner were held inapplicable.

Cause Title: Waman Shamrao Kulkarni v. The Registrar (Administration), High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AUG:50126-DB)

Appearances:

Petitioner: Neha B. Kamble, Advocate.

Respondent: Rajendrraa Deshmukkh, Senior Counsel, Meenal S. Deshmukh, Mukul Kulkarni, Advocates.

Click here to read/download the Judgment