As per case facts, the petitioner, an Assistant Teacher who served for over 15 years, was terminated from service after a departmental inquiry for misconduct and his appeal against termination ... was rejected by the School Tribunal. Decades later, the petitioner sought pension benefits, which the State of Maharashtra rejected citing Rule 45 of the MCS Pension Rules, 1982, concerning forfeiture of service upon dismissal or removal. The petitioner challenged this, arguing Rule 45 applies only to dismissal or removal, not termination, and that his continuous service entitled him to a pension. The question arose whether "termination" for misconduct under the MEPS Act and Rules is distinct from "dismissal" or "removal" for the purpose of pension forfeiture, and if the petitioner's claim, filed with significant delay, was maintainable. Finally, the court held that under the MEPS Act and Rules, no distinction exists between termination, dismissal, or removal for serious misconduct, thus Rule 45 of the MCS Pension Rules was applicable. The court found the petition highly belated without a reasonable cause for delay and lacking in merits, leading to its dismissal.