a HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ‘ Writ Petition (S) No. 2101 of 2008 @ PETITIONER : Wasiuddin Siddiqui, S/o Late Shri Sulemanuddin Siddiqui, Aged 63 years, Retired Assistant Engineer, CSEB, R/o H.No. 2-A, Street N0.—l 8, Sector-1, Bhilai, District Durg (CG). VERSUS RESPQN_I“)ENTS z 1. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (CSEB), through its Secretary, H.Q. Daganiya, Raipur. 2. The Chief Engineer (0&M), CSEB, Raipur. (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF WDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present : Shri R.K. Kesarwani, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Kachhwaha, Advocate for the respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 4‘“ day or July, 2003) .1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finally. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that admittedly the petitioner was convicted for having committed the offences, punishable under section 7 read with section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ’the Act, 1988), by the Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Durg, on 31.08.2007. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the High Court against the conviction order dated 31.082007. This Court, vide order dated 24.09.07 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 853/07, while admitting the appeal, suspended the jail sentence imposed on the petitioner. 4. The petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.1 l .2003. The petitioner‘was granted anticipatory pension by order dated 10.06.2004 to the tune of Rs. 14,386/- per month. After conviction, the pensionary benefits have been withheld in *\ \ \ x4. h.. . x x . exercise of power under Rule 9(1) of C.G. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short ‘the Rules, 1976). 5. Shri Kesarwam', leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is governed under Rule 8(3) of the Rule, 1976. 6. On perusal of Rule 8(3) of the Rules, 1976, it appears that case of conviction is excluded from sub rule (3) of Rule 8. The caSe of the petitioner is governed under sub rule (2) of Rule 8, as the petitioner has been convicted in a criminal case. Only the jail sentence has been suspended and there is no stay of the conviction. Thus, the order passed by the respondent authorities, withholding pension pursuant to the conviction of the petitioner in Special Case No. 1/2002 vide judgment dated 31.08.2007, is just and proper, and no interference is warranted. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as having no merit. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ’