a;i3sat au^i E^i u;-: '^s^^: :-HG—78 ^fi^T ^T'f^Nr '^^T^T^?^^' ^ ~5^T';^PTRTZr, ^tll^^Ko, f®l<ni^^< Wfdl ^^lcb _...LAj..a •-^200 ^?T T?^F ('^I^c^?) ^WIW^tNOT^T DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. DHIRENDRA A^ISHRA & HON'BLE MR. R.N. CHANDRAKAR. JJ Writ Apd (ADpeal U/s 2 (1) of C.6. Hliah Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act. 2006) Appellant Petitioner Wasi|jddin Siddiqui, S/o Late Sulemanuddin Siddi|qui, Aged 63 years, Retired Asstt. Engirleer, C.S.E.B. R/o H. No. 2-/\, Street No.l^, Sector-1, Bhilai, Oistn'ct Durg(CG) Versus Respondents 1. ( C^hattisgarh State Electricity Board p.S.E.B.), Through its Secretary, H.Q. D^ganiya, Raipur. Chief Engineer (O <& M) C.S.E.B., 2. The 31.07.2009 Mr. R.K. Kesharwani, Adv< None for the re$pondent| Heard. The short question involv|e< Single Judge was justified ir appellant/petitioner wherein h( dated 11.3.2008 whereby antici|patory herein was permanently withhel<|l 'eR^fe^' ^TO^f ^* 1^crt iPsl^Si ^ ^tRw a?n^r eal No. 174/2008 Rjiipur. cate for the appellant. |ed in this writ appeal is whether learned dismissing the writ petition of the had prayed for quashing of the order pension granted to the appellant with immediate effect. 6^ .^i^i^rR^ ^sff ^S^lWs^ '3^f T^11MI<rl^, ^Tll<rl^l(o, [®l<ni<rl^< WWff tt»*1|cb -^200 3TI^?T TT^F ( ^li^^) ^^1^1< ^18^^ anticipo|tory AAr. Kesharwani, leQrned| sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 of the C.{ short 'Rules, 1976') argued thcj1 without any opportunity of he^ Judge was not justified in governed under sub-rule (2) of| argued that since criminal appe| in the High Court ond jail sentt was atleast entitled for We have heard leamedl perused the order passed by th^ The petition has been dist the following observation:- "6. On perusat of Ryle 8| appears that case of convj rule (3)of Rule 8. Th^ governed under sub-rule (2 has been convicted in a sentence has been suspen{ conviction. Thus, the ord^ authorities, withholding ahHid41^ ^TR^f 1?f "feTSt ipsi^K ^3ffOT3^T counsel for the appellont referring to 7. Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976 (for the order impugned has been passed ^ring to the appellant. Leamed Sin9le objserving that case of the petitioner is |Rule 8 of the Rules, 1976. He further il preferred by the appellant is pending ^nce has been suspended/the appellant pension. counsel for theappellant. We have learned Single Judge. is|^i5Sed by the learned Single Judge wjth (3) of the Rules, 1976, it . liction is excluded from sub- case of the petitioner is |) of Rule 8, as the petitioner |;riminal case. Only the jail ispen^ed and there is no stay of ^r passed by the respondent Ipension pursuant to the •+ .^-"•^^:- ^l 'l 8 ^ ^ X^HC^78 ^ST •^iqi<n^, ^iTil-(-i<i(o, f®tdl<LI^< <WR^ff »»*ll<!b ••^200 ^v^ Tr^r ((iGif^<sf<l?:T) 3?I^T ^T Rl^Joh WT ^TI^T s^^i^ -5 ^nw^f^n ^^T^I conviction of the petitioi^ vide judgment dated 31.0| no interference is warran-1 After hearing learned| carefully examining Rule 8 of t| there is no illegality or infrrm] learned Single Judge. In the result. the wij deserves to be dismissed and order as to costs. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge ^Frf^Pft^ 'HW^if ^* fe^ iFsi^K ^atRR^n^l \er in Special Case No.1/2002 ^.2007, is just and proper, and \ed" counsel for the appellant and after ^e Rules, 1976, we are of theopinion that [ty in the order impugned passed by the |it appeal has no substance, the same is, accordingly, hereby dismissed. No Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge \-