(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2170 OF 2011 1. Smt. Rekha Vinod Shivpuje, Age : 25 years, Occu. Household 2. Saiganesh s/o Vinod Shivpuje, Age : 5 years, Occu. Education, Being minor u/guardianship of his mother Smt. Rekha Vinod Shivpuje - Petitioner No.1. Both residents of Shetkar Niwas, Udgir, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur. PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Latur. 3. Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Latur RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. R.P. Adgaonkar, advocate for the Petitioners. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State. Mr. P.R. Tandle, advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. ..... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 27th SEPTEMBER, 2011 JUDGEMENT (PER : M.T. JOSHI, J.) : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties. (2) 2. By the present petition, the petitioners are seeking quashment of the order dated 17th October, 2007, issued by Respondent No. 3 - the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Latur whereby the family pension granted to the petitioners upon death of late Shri Vinod Veerbhadra Shivpuje was discontinued. 3. Deceased Vinod was the husband and father respectively of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. The deceased was working as an Assistant Teacher at a Primary School at Sawargaon Ajani. He committed suicide on 27th January, 2006. The petitioners obtained succession certificate and claimed family pension from Respondent No. 3. Ultimately, on 29th December, 2006, provisional family pension was ordered and since 5th February, 2007, the actual payment was started. In the meantime, the father of deceased Vinod raised an objection that since a criminal case is pending against Petitioner No.1 for the charges that she had abetted the commission of suicide of her deceased husband, the family pension (3) could not have been granted to her till the disposal of the criminal complaint. Acting on the said complaint, the family pension was discontinued. 4. Mr. P.R. Tandale, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, submitted that in view of the provisions of Rule 116 (13) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, the petitioner No. 1 was not entitled for grant of family pension. The relevant Rule runs as follows : "116. Family Pension, 1964. (1) to (12) ***** (13) (a) If a person who in the event of death of a Government servant while in service is eligible to receive Family Pension under this rule, is charged with the offence of murdering the Government servant or for abetting in the commission of such an offence, the claim of such a person, including other eligible member or members of the family to receive the Family Pension, shall remain suspended till the conclusion of the criminal proceedings instituted against him. (b) If on the conclusion of the criminal proceedings referred to in clause (a), the person concerned - (i) is convicted for the murder or abetting in the commission of the murder of the Government servant, such a person (4) shall be debarred from receiving the Family Pension which shall be payable to other eligible member of the family, from the date of death of the Government servant; (ii) is acquitted of the charge of murder or abetting in the commission of the murder of the Government servant, the Family Pension shall be payable to such a person from the date of death of the Government servant. (c) *****" 5. The provision would thus show that if the claimant has committed murder of the employee upon whose death a person claims family pension, the same cannot be granted to him/her. Admittedly, a criminal case is pending against petitioner No.1 vide Crime No. 33/2006, registered with Police Station (Rural), Udgir for the offence punishable under section 306 read with section 34 of the I.P. Code i.e. offence of abetment to the commission of suicide. Mr. Tandale, learned counsel, however, emphatically submits that the terminology "such an offence" as used in the provision of Rule 116 (13) would show that even an offence of abetment to commission of suicide of the employee would be covered by the provision. We are (5) afraid that the interpretation of the provision as made by Mr. Tandale is not proper. The term "such an offence" refers to the offence already detailed in the provision i.e. `murder'. 6. In view of above facts and legal position, since the order of withdrawal of family pension is based on the erroneous interpretation of the provision, the same will have to be quashed and set aside. 7. In the result, we allow the writ petition. The impugned order dated 17th October, 2007 is quashed and set aside. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to start paying the family pension to the petitioners within a period of four weeks from today. The arrears of family pension, if any, shall be paid to the petitioners within a period of three months from today. Rule is made absolute in above terms, with no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- [M.T. JOSHI, J.] [B.R. GAVAI, J.] npj/wp2170-11