1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4685 OF 2009 Mr.Parshuram Nathuram Sankhe .. Petitioner V/s The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary, Rural Development Dept. & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.A.R.Pitale for the Petitioner. Mr.A.B.Vagyani, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 & 5. Mr.S.P.Thorat for Respondent Nos.2 to 4. CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 27th April, 2010 P.C. : 1. Rule. The learned counsel Mr.Thorat, waives service of the rule on behalf of Respondent Nos.2 to 4, and the lerned AGP Mr.Vagyani waives service of the rule on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 & 5. With consent, the petition is taken up for hearing. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed that the Respondents be directed to pay to the petitioner the pensionary benefits and the gratuity benefits. The petitioner is the retired employee. He has retired on 31st March, 2005. After his retirement the criminal case is filed against him in the year 2009 and today the said criminal case is pending against him wherein there are allegations against him that he has mis-appropriated Rs.17 lakhs 2 while he was in service. 3. This Court is not required to consider the aspect about the criminal case, but suffice is it to say that as of today judicial proceedings are pending against the petitioner in the form of criminal case. The Department initially had withhold his pension. Subsequently, the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No.1607 of 2008, but since the Department had assured to pay the provisional pension the petitioner had withdrawn the said petition. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was given benefit of provisional pension for a period of six months from 1.4.2005 to 30.9.2005. but thereafter it was stopped. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties including the learned AGP. It is not in dispute that the judicial proceedings are pending against the petitioner, and therefore, there is no question of payment of regular pension and gratuity to the petitioner as the same cannot be paid till the criminal proceedings pending against him are over, but the petitioner can be paid the provisional pension. In this behalf reference is required to be made to sub-rule 1(b) of Rule 130 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. The said sub-rule 1(b) of Rule 130 reads as under: “The provisional pension shall be authorised by the Head of the Office for a period of six months during the period commencing from the date of retirement unless the period is 3 extended by the Audit Officer and such provisional pension shall be continued upto and including the date on which, after the conclusion of departmental or judicial proceedings, final orders are passed by the competent authority.” 5. In view of the same, the petitioner is entitled to get the provisional pension till the judicial proceedings pending against him are over. It is an admitted fact that no departmental enquiry is pending against the petitioner. Considering the scheme of sub-rule 1(b) of Rule 130 of the aforesaid pension Rules, the Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 are therefore directed directed to continue to pay to the petitioner the provisional pension till the judicial proceedings against the petitioner in the criminal case are over. Payment of such provisional pension shall be subject to the outcome of the judicial proceedings in the criminal case pending against the petitioner. If any extension is required to be obtained from the Audit Officer, the Respondent Nos.2, 3 & 4 may approach the Audit Officer for granting such extension. 6. The provisional pension shall be paid till the conclusion of the judicial proceedings in the criminal case. After the criminal case is over, the Department is required to take fresh decision about payment of pensionary benefits. 7. Petition is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent and the rule is 4 partly made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs. (R.G.KETKAR, J.) (P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)