1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3467 OF 2010 Shaikh Iqbal s/o. Shaikh Ali, Age 64 yrs., Occu. Retired, Zilla Parishad Employee, R/o. H.No. 5/2/64, Kotwalpura Mill Corner, Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. ....Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Principal Secretary Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. 4. The Executive Engineer (Works Department), Z.P. Aurangabad. 5. Chief Accounts & Finance Officer, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. 6. The Block Development Officer, Class-I, Panchayat Samiti, Aurangabad Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. ....Respondents. Mr. V.G. Salgare, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mrs. Manjusha Deshpande, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 and 6. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATED : 28th September, 2010. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT : [Per B.R. GAVAI, J.] 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the action of respondent Nos. 3 to 6, withhelding the arrears of pension of the petitioner during the period from April 2007 to 4th November 2009. 3. The petitioner was working as Senior Clerk with the respondent Zilla Parishad. The petitioner retired from his service on 30th November 2001 on the superannuation. As such, the petitioner was being paid the regular pension with effect from 1st of December 2001. However, from the month of April 2007, the pension of the petitioner was withheld. Accordingly, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. The said appeal came to be allowed by order dated 4th of September 2009. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no rational behind the action of respondent Nos. 3 to 6 in withholding pension of the petitioner and that too, after years and six months. 5. Mrs. Manjusha Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 3 to 6 states that since it was found that the petitioner had indulged in to misappropriation, the pension was withheld by the authorities. 3 6. The respondent No. 2 - the Divisional Commissioner, in the order dated 4th of September 2009, has found that in view of provisions of Rule 8 and 27 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, an action cannot be taken against the retired employee after the period of four years from the date of superannuation. In any case, when respondent No. 2 - the Divisional Commissioner, which is an Appellate authority, has specifically allowed the appeal and directed respondent Nos. 3 to 6 to pay the pension regularly, the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 were bound to follow the said directions. It is not as if the order of the Divisional Commissioner has been challenged by the respondent Nos. 3 to 6. 7. It is not in dispute that after the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, pension has been restored to the petitioner. The question of arrears between April 2007 to 4th September 2009 , therefore, only arises. When the Appellate authority specifically allowed the appeal of the petitioner and directed the pension to be paid, there is no reason for respondent Nos. 3 to 6 to withhold the arrears. The same ought to have been paid immediately after the order was passed by the Divisional Commissioner. When the order was passed by the Appellate authority, the sub-ordinate authority is bound to comply the same. The petitioner was unnecessarily required to approach this Court for legitimate grievance. 4 8. In that view of the matter, we incline to allow the petition by directing the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 to pay the arrears of pension to the petitioner during the period from April 2007 to 4th of September 2009 within a period of four weeks from today. The petition is, therefore, allowed. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with costs, which are quantified at Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. five thousand) payable by the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today. [ A. A. SAYED ] [ B. R. GAVAI ] Judge Judge ssc/wp3467.10