Shri Jagoba S/O Balaji Raut vs The Collector,Office Of The ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 3780 Bom

                                1
                                                         wp3015.02.odt

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
             NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                   Writ Petition No.3015 of 2002


  Shri Jagoba s/o Balaji Raut,
  Aged about 64 years,
  Occupation - Retired Tahsildar,
  R/o Near Hanuman Temple,
  Shiv Nagar, Wardha.

  Legal heirs of Petitioner :

  1. Smt. Sheela Jagobaji Raut,
     Aged about 69 years,
     Occupation - Housewife,
     R/o Ward No.39,
     Near Hanuman Mandir,
     Shiv Nagar, Wardha.

  2. Shri Dnyneshwar s/o Jagobaji Raut,
     Aged about 49 years,
     Occupation - Service,
     R/o Ward No.39, 
     Near Hanuman Mandir,
     Shiv Nagar, Wardha.

  3. Shri Sudhir s/o Jagobaji Raut,
     Aged about 45 years,
     Occupation - Service,
     R/o Ward No.39, 
     Near Hanuman Mandir,
     Shiv Nagar, Wardha.

  4. Shri Sunil s/o Jagobaji Raut,
     Aged about 43 years,
     Occupation - Service,




::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017                  ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2017 00:35:21 :::
                                 2
                                                          wp3015.02.odt

        R/o Ward No.39,
        Near Hanuman Mandir,
        Shiv Nagar, Wardha.

  5. Shri Rajendra s/o Jagobaji Raut,
     Aged about 40 years,
     Occupation - Service,
     R/o Ward No.39, 
     Near Hanuman Mandir,
     Shiv Nagar, Wardha.                         ... Petitioner


        Versus


  The Collector,
  Office of the Collector,
  Wardha.                                        ... Respondent


  None for Petitioner.
  Shri   V.P.   Maldhure,   Assistant   Government   Pleader   for 
  Respondent.


                Coram : R.K. Deshpande & Mrs. Swapna Joshi, JJ.

th Dated : 29 June, 2017

Oral Judgment (Per R.K. Deshpande, J.) :

1. This petition seeks a direction to the respondent to pay

the arrears of pension and to continue to pay the same to the

petitioner regularly every month. It also seeks a direction to the

wp3015.02.odt

respondent to pay the compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- with

interest on the amount of arrears of pension and the

compensation.

2. The petitioner was convicted for the offences under the

Prevention of Corruption Act on 9-8-1999 in Special Case

No.5/92 by the Special Court at Wardha. The petitioner attained

the age of superannuation while he was under suspension

pending prosecution as well as departmental enquiry. The

petitioner was paid the provisional pension up to 31-7-1999 and

upon conviction being recorded by the Special Court on 9-8-

1999, the provisional pension was stopped.

3. The petitioner preferred the statutory appeal against the

order of conviction before this Court and it was dismissed as

abated on 15-2-2016.

4. Though the legal representatives of the petitioner were

brought on record, we think it proper to reproduce the order

wp3015.02.odt

passed by this Court on 24-3-2003 while admitting the petition,

as under :

              "           Heard.
                          Rule.

On interim relief, our attention has been drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner to Rule 130 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 and the learned Assistant Government Pleader relies upon Rule 27 of the said rules.

Rule 130 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, deals with the cases of provisional pension where departmental or judicial proceedings may be pending and Rule 27 of the Rules deals with right of Government to withhold or withdraw pension if in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service. Admittedly, the petitioner has been held guilty of accepting bribe under the Anti Corruption Act. The learned advocate for the petitioner says that the appeal is pending where the sentence imposed is stayed but conviction has not been stayed.

In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to continue the ad interim relief granted on 11.2.2003. The

wp3015.02.odt

petitioner shall, however, be at liberty to apply for pension in case the petitioner succeeds in the appeal."

5. In view of the fact that the appeal filed against

conviction stood abated, the order of conviction passed by the

Special Court survives, as a result of which the petitioner or his

legal representatives are not entitled to any relief in this petition.

6. The petition is dismissed. Rule stands discharged. No

order as to costs.

                             JUDGE.                                   JUDGE.

   Lanjewar