Mrs. Magdalene W/O Alfred Francis vs Education Officer (Primary) Zp, ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 784 Bom

WP  1788/13                                            1                             Judgment

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                  NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
                       WRIT PETITION No. 1788/2013
Mrs. Magdalene Wife of Alfred Francis,
aged about 59 years, Occupation - Retired,
Resident of Plot No.81-A, Old Kailash Nagar, 
PO Ayodhya Nagar, Nagpur - 440 024.                                                PETITIONER
                                    .....VERSUS.....

1.    Education Officer (Primary),
      Zilla Parishad, Civil Lines, Nagpur.
2.    Saint Ignatius education Society,
      having its office at "Philomena Bhawan",
      Near Medical Square, Nagpur,
      through its President.
3.    Accountant General,
      (Accounts & Entitlement-I),
      Pension Wing Old Building,
      Civil Lines, Nagpur.                                                           RESPONDENTS

                                  None for the petitioner.
        Shri G.G. Mishra h/f Mrs. I.L. Bodade, counsel for the respondent no.1.
                        Shri J.D. Bastian for the respondent no.2.
       Shri A.S. Fulzele, Additional Government Pleader for the respondent no.3.

                                      CORAM :SMT.VASANTI  A  NAIK AND
                                                    V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.           

DATE : 16 TH MARCH, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT.VASANTI A NAIK, J.)

By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction against

the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur to forward the

pension case of the petitioner to the respondent no.3 so that the pension

could be released in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has

challenged the communication of the Zilla Parishad refusing to grant the

pensionary benefits to the petitioner due to the pendency of the

prosecution against the petitioner.

WP 1788/13 2 Judgment

2. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in

Saint Vincent Upper Primary School and became the in-charge

Headmistress on 30.03.2010. The petitioner attained the age of

superannuation on 31.08.2011. The pension case of the petitioner was

forwarded by the president of the society with which the petitioner was

working, to the Education Officer (Primary). The respondents, however,

refused to release the pension in favour of the petitioner on the ground

that the petitioner was involved in Crime No.131 of 2011 and the trial

against the petitioner was in progress. It is the case of the petitioner that

a false complaint had been lodged against the petitioner for the offences

punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468 read with Section 34

of the Indian Penal Code. According to the petitioner, since the petitioner

was falsely implicated, the respondents cannot release only the

provisional pension in favour of the petitioner and it would be necessary

for the respondents to release the regular pension.

3. On a reading of Rule 27(4) of the Maharashtra Civil

Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, it appears that a government servant

against whom a judicial proceedings is pending, would be entitled to

provisional pension as per Rule 130 of the Rules. Rule 130 of the Rules

provides that provisional pension that would be admissible on the basis of

qualifying service of the government servant and would be payable to the

government servant against final retirement benefits, till the conclusion of

WP 1788/13 3 Judgment

the judicial proceedings against the government servant. We had, while

admitting the writ petition on 11.09.2013 directed the respondent no.1 to

pay provisional pension to the petitioner in accordance with the

provisions of Rule 27(4) read with Rule 130 of the Maharashtra Civil

Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. The said order is operational during the

pendency of the writ petition.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 states

that the criminal prosecution is still pending against the petitioner

and, hence, the petitioner would be entitled to the provisional

pension till the trial concludes and the petitioner is acquitted. It is

stated on behalf of the respondent no.1 that appropriate orders

would be passed after the culmination of the criminal trial, that is

pending.

5. In the circumstances of the case, we dispose of the writ

petition with a direction to the respondent no.1 to pay provisional

pension to the petitioner in accordance with Rule 27(4) read with Rule

130 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 till the

criminal trial is concluded. The respondent no.1 should take

appropriate steps for either granting regular pension or pass an

appropriate order on the basis of the judgment in the criminal case after

the trial is concluded.

WP 1788/13 4 Judgment

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as

to costs.

              JUDGE                                    JUDGE

APTE