Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court quashed the decision of the Mumbai Port Authority rejecting the petitioner’s request for compassionate pension and retirement benefits. It held that the petitioner was entitled to compassionate pension under Regulation 10(a) of the Mumbai Port Trust (MBPT) Pension Regulations, 1965. The Court found that the Board’s reasoning—claiming the petitioner lacked exemplary contribution—was arbitrary, ignoring prior High Court directions and established legal standards. The Court directed that pension payments commence within 90 days, including arrears with statutory interest.
Facts
The petitioner was appointed in 1986 with the Mumbai Port Trust. He was removed from service in 2005 following disciplinary proceedings arising from 646 days of unauthorized absence. The removal was upheld through departmental and judicial review, including rejection of Writ Petition No.4268 of 2018. However, in that writ petition, the Court had directed the authorities to consider the petitioner’s case for compassionate allowance under Rule 35(1) of the MBPT Pension Regulations, 2001.
Following this, the petitioner submitted an application dated 27.09.2023, which was rejected on 15.10.2024, citing non-applicability of the 2001 Regulations due to lack of Central Government sanction and absence of “exemplary contribution” by the petitioner.
Issues
- Whether the petitioner’s removal from service for unauthorized absenteeism disentitles him from compassionate pension.
- Whether Regulation 10(a) of the MBPT Pension Regulations, 1965 applies.
- Whether the petitioner’s personal circumstances warrant “special consideration” for compassionate pension.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The petitioner argued that his long absence was caused by trauma following an accident, psychological illness, and family circumstances.
- He contended that his service prior to dismissal was unblemished for 17 years.
- He relied on the Bombay High Court’s direction in Writ Petition No.4268 of 2018 to consider his case sympathetically.
- He cited Supreme Court and High Court decisions, including Mahinder Dutt Sharma v. Union of India and Saroj Magan Damare v. Superintending Engineer, in support of granting compassionate pension.
Respondent’s Arguments
- The respondents contended that Regulation 35(1) of the 2001 Regulations was not in force as it lacked Central Government sanction.
- They relied on Regulation 10(a) of the 1965 Regulations, asserting that compassionate allowance could only be granted in cases deserving of special consideration, which the petitioner’s case did not merit.
- They justified the dismissal and denied any wrongdoing in rejecting the petitioner’s representation.
Analysis of the Law
The Court compared Regulation 10(a) of the MBPT Pension Regulations, 1965 with Rule 41 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, both of which permit compassionate allowance in cases of dismissal if special consideration exists. The judgment thoroughly examined the Supreme Court’s criteria from Mahinder Dutt Sharma, which laid down five categories of misconduct that would ordinarily disqualify a dismissed employee from compassionate pension.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied extensively on:
- Mahinder Dutt Sharma v. Union of India, (2014) 11 SCC 684: Held that unauthorized absence, not amounting to moral turpitude or dishonesty, does not automatically disqualify a dismissed employee from receiving compassionate allowance.
- Saroj Magan Damare v. Superintending Engineer, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 512: Bombay High Court allowed pension to widow of a dismissed employee whose misconduct was absenteeism.
- Anna Deoram Londhe v. State of Maharashtra, 1998 SCC OnLine Bom 213: Pension granted where the misconduct was unconnected to service duties.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court held:
- “Petitioner was neither charged nor held guilty of any of the delinquency, as categorized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahinder Dutt Sharma.”
- Absenteeism alone, especially when explained by trauma and medical conditions, does not fall under any of the five disqualifying categories laid out by the Supreme Court.
- “Respondents have adopted a flippant approach while dealing with the case of the Petitioner.”
- The Board’s reason—absence of “exemplary contribution”—was held to be arbitrary in light of the petitioner’s health condition, economic hardship, and long service.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court allowed the petition, quashing the rejection order and directed:
- Grant of compassionate pension and retirement benefits under MBPT Pension Regulations, 1965.
- Commencement of pension within 90 days.
- Arrears of pension for three years preceding the filing of Writ Petition No.4268 of 2018 to be paid with statutory interest.
Implications
This judgment underscores that compassionate allowance cannot be arbitrarily denied where the misconduct does not fall within the categories of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or grave depravity. It reiterates the binding nature of judicial directions and compels public authorities to consider hardship circumstances empathetically, especially in cases involving long service and medical suffering.