"Bombay HC Upholds Pension Relief for Widow, Slams Blanket Rejections: ‘Absenteeism Alone Can’t Deny Compassionate Benefits’"
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, comprising Justice S.G. Mehare and Justice Sanjay A. Deshmukh, stated on a review application concerning a judgment delivered in Writ Petition No. 5750 of 2021. The review petition, filed by government authorities, sought to set aside the court’s previous decision that granted compassionate pension to the family of a dismissed government employee. The court examined whether the application met the strict criteria for review under Section 114 and Order XLVII of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
The case pertains to the widow and son of late Magan Damare, who had served as a watchman under the Aurangabad Irrigation Board for 22 years before being dismissed due to absenteeism. Following a departmental inquiry, he was removed from service. He did not challenge the dismissal and later passed away on April 5, 2012.
Following his demise, his wife and son filed representations on November 21, 2012, and January 28, 2014, seeking compassionate pension. These applications were rejected by the authorities. They then filed a case before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in 2019 under Original Application No. 936 of 2019, but later withdrew it on February 26, 2020. Subsequently, they approached the High Court in Writ Petition No. 5750 of 2021.
The High Court had cited in their favor, setting aside the rejection order and directing the authorities to grant compassionate pension. The state, through its review petition, argued that this decision was contrary to law and erroneous. It contended that the judgement relied on Mahinder Dutt Sharma v. Union of India & Ors. (2014), which interpreted Rule 41 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, a provision not applicable in Maharashtra. Instead, Rule 101 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, explicitly barred dismissed employees from receiving compassionate pension benefits.
The court considered whether the review application satisfied the narrow grounds permitted under Order XLVII of the Civil Procedure Code, which allows review only in cases of an error apparent on the face of the record. The court noted that a mere disagreement with the judgment does not justify review.
Referencing Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer (1) & Ors. (2023), the bench observed:
"An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review."
The court further examined whether reliance on Mahinder Dutt Sharma was misplaced. It observed that although the case concerned Central Government employees, the reasoning applied to Rule 41 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, was pari materia to the interpretation of Rule 101 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. The bench stated:
"Granting compassionate pension is at the discretion of the authority, which must be exercised based on the nature of misconduct. The failure to exercise discretion when warranted constitutes a legal infirmity."
Additionally, the court referred to Government of NCT of Delhi v. Late Shri Ashok Kumar Singh (2022), which stated that the discretion to grant compassionate pension should be exercised after due consideration of the facts rather than applying a blanket rejection policy. The bench noted:
"The authority must examine the specific nature of the misconduct leading to dismissal. If the misconduct does not involve moral turpitude or gross indiscipline, discretion must be exercised judiciously."
The court acknowledged that the dismissed employee had been found guilty of absenteeism, but no allegations of dishonesty, moral turpitude, or severe misconduct had been established. Given these circumstances, the court held that the previous decision to grant compassionate pension did not contain an error warranting review. It noted that:
"The mere fact that the dismissed employee did not appeal his termination cannot preclude his dependents from seeking compassionate pension, especially where the punishment is found to be harsh."
The court held that the burden lies with the administrative authority to provide cogent reasons for rejecting a compassionate pension application, particularly in cases where the nature of misconduct does not involve moral turpitude. The absence of such reasoning in this case rendered the rejection legally unsustainable.
The court dismissed the review petition, upholding the previous judgement that granted compassionate pension to the dependents of the deceased employee. It concluded:
"There is no patent illegality or glaring mistake in the impugned judgment. The review application is devoid of merit and it deserves to be rejected."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Applicants: Mr. A.S. Shinde, Assistant Government Pleader
For the Respondents: Mr. G.D. Jain, Advocate
Case Title: Superintending Engineer, Aurangabad Irrigation Board & Ors. v. Sau. Saroj wd/o Magan Damare & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025: BHC-AUG:7967-DB
Case Number: Review Application No. 23 of 2025 in Writ Petition No. 5750 of 2021
Bench: Justice S.G. Mehare, Justice Sanjay A. Deshmukh
[Read/Download order]
