JUDGMENT : 1. Leave granted. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The only question that falls for consideration in this appeal is whether the respondent is entitled to grant of compassionate pension after his compulsory retirement from service. 4. The respondent was employed as Junior Employment Officer and while he was thus employed disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on a charge of misconduct in having accepted a sum of Rs. 500/- as bribe. After enquiry the said charge was found proved and the penalty of compulsory retirement from service was imposed by order dated December 17, 1990. The appeal filed by the respondent against the said order of punishment was rejected by the State Government by order dated July 18, 1992 The respondent applied for grant of compassionate pension but the said application was rejected by order dated August 26, 1993. The respondent filed a petition (O.A. No. 913 of 1993) before Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal', claiming that he was entitled to grant of compassionate pension. The said petition of the respondent has been allowed by the Tribunal by the impugned judgment dated March 17, 1997 on the view that the respondent had a vested right to get compassionate pension and there was no question of the Government exercising a 11 discretion in the matter. 5. The relevant provisions governing the grant of compassionate pension, as in force on the date of the passing of the order of compulsory retirement dated December 17, 1990, were as follows: "100. Grant of Compassionate pension (1) A Government Servant who is removed or required to retire from Government service for misconduct or insolvency shall be granted no pension other than a compassionate pension. (2) A Government servant who is removed or required to retire from Government service on the ground of inefficiency, shall if he be eligible for a superannuation, or retiring pension, be granted such pension. If he is not eligible for a superannuation or retiring pension he shall be granted no pension other than a Compassionate Pension. 101. (2) A Government servant who is removed or required to retire from Government service on the ground of inefficiency, shall if he be eligible for a superannuation, or retiring pension, be granted such pension. If he is not eligible for a superannuation or retiring pension he shall be granted no pension other than a Compassionate Pension. 101. Grant of Compassionate Pension in deserving cases by Government (1) When a Government servant is removed or required to retire from Government service for misconduct or insolvency or is removed or required to retire from Government service on grounds of inefficiency before he is eligible for a Retiring or Superannuation Pension, Government, may if the case is considered deserving or special treatment, sanction the grant to him of a Compassionate Pension. (2) a dismissed Government servant is not eligible for Compassionate Pension." 6. The said provisions indicate that under Rule 100 no pension was payable to a Government servant who was removed or retired from Government service for misconduct. He could only be granted compassionate pension. For compassionate pension provision was made in Rule 101 which prescribed that in a case where the Government Servant who had been removed or was required to retire from Government service for misconduct or insolvency or was removed from Government service on the ground of misconduct or inefficiency before became eligible for retiring or superannuation pension the Government may, if the case was considered deserving of special treatment, sanction the grant to him of a Compassionate Pension. 7. Shri T.V.S. Narasimhachari, the learned counsel for the respondent, has urged that under Rule 101 State Government had the discretion in the matter to grant compassionate pension only in those cases where the Government Servant had been required to retire before he became eligible for retiring or superannuation pension and that in a case where the Government servant was required to retire after he had become eligible from retiring or superannuation pension there was no discretion in the State Government and compassionate pension was payable as a right to the employee. We are unable to accept this contention. In our opinion, Rule 101(1) has to be read with Rule 100 and, if thus, read, it would be evident that compassionate pension could be granted under Rule 101(1) to a Government Servant falling under sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (2) of Rule 100 who was not entitled to regular pension. We are unable to accept this contention. In our opinion, Rule 101(1) has to be read with Rule 100 and, if thus, read, it would be evident that compassionate pension could be granted under Rule 101(1) to a Government Servant falling under sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (2) of Rule 100 who was not entitled to regular pension. In other words, it could be granted to a Government Servant who was removed or required to retire from Government service for misconduct or insolvency because he was not entitled to regular pension in view of sub-rule (1) of rule 100 as well as to a Government Servant who was removed or required to retire from Government service on the ground inefficiency and who was not eligible for a superannuation or retiring pension in view of sub-Rule (2) of rule 100. In both the cases the compassionate pension could only be granted at the discretion of the State Government if the case was considered deserving of special treatment. A Government Servant who was required to retire from Government service for misconduct or insolvency was not entitled to regular pension irrespective of the length of his service. Compassionate pension could be granted to him by the State Government in its discretion if the case was considered deserving special treatment. He had no vested right to payment of compassionate pension under Rule 101. 8. In the impugned judgment the Tribunal has referred to the provisions of Rules 100 and 101 as amended vide notification dated December 7, 1994. The said provisions are not applicable in the present case because the order of compulsory retirement was passed on December 17, 1990, prior to the said amendment in Rules 100 and 101. Moreover, under the amended Rules also no vested right to grant of compassionate pension could be claimed under Rule 101. In the circumstances, we are unable to uphold the impugned judgment of the Tribunal. 9. The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the judgment of the Tribunal dated March 17, 1997 is set aside and O.A. No. 913 of 1993 filed by the respondent is dismissed. No order as to costs.