(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 1535 OF 2010 Hausrao s/o. Ganpati Gopalghare, Age : 63 years, Occupation : Retired, R/o. Nagobachiwadi, Taluka : Jamkhed, District : Ahmednagar. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 2. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar. 3. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. R.D. Sanap, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. N.B. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.1. (2) Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate, for respondent nos.2 and 3. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 13TH OCTOBER 2010 COURT'S ORDER (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner seeks writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the communication dated 14th December 2009, vide which the petitioner has been informed that on account of the conviction recorded against him, the pension cannot be made applicable to him till the decision of his appeal by the High Court. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Deokinandan Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar and others (AIR 1971 SC 1409(1)), and in the case of Umesh Kumar Sinha Vs. State of Bihar & others (2010 AIR SCW 4294). 3. By way of impugned communication, the petitioner has been informed that in view of Rule 27 of the Maharashtra (3) Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (For short, hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), since the petitioner was convicted, the pension cannot be made applicable to him till his appeal is decided by the High Court. Perusal of Rules 26 and 27 of the Rules would reveal that the State Government is empowered to withhold the pension when a pensioner is convicted of a serious crime or is found guilty of grave misconduct. It, therefore, cannot be said that the order impugned is contrary to the provisions of the Rules. 4. In so far as the judgment of the Apex Court, in the case of Deokinandan Prasad (cited supra), is concerned, in the said case, the Apex Court itself has held that right to pension flows from rules and not the order granting the pension. In the present case, since the relevant pension rules itself permit withholding of the pension on account of conviction in a serious crime, the said judgment would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. 5. In so far as the judgment of the Apex Court, in the case of Umesh Kumar Sinha (cited supra), is concerned, the said judgment is with respect to proportionality of punishment with respect to the charges proved against a delinquent. In that view of the matter, the said judgment would also be not applicable to the facts of the present case. (4) 6. In that view of the matter, no merit is found in the petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed. ( A.A. SAYED ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp1535