1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 2333 OF 1994 Smt. Sugranbai W/o Manikrao Dhanewhar, Age 50 years, Occu. House hold, R/o Chakur, District Latur. .. PETITIONER. VERSUS 1] The State of Maharashtra The Secretary, Revenue & Forest Department for Maharashtra State, Mumbai. 2] Accountant General, Maharashtara State, Nagpur. 3] Collector, Collector office, Latur. 4] The Tahasildar, Tahasil office, Nilanga. ..RESPONDENTS ... Shri R.R.. Suryawanshi, Advocate for Petitioner Shri N.B. Patil, A.G.P. for respondent State CORAM :- B.R.GAVAI AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA JJ. DATE : 9th JUNE, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT: The petitioner has filed the present petition for claiming the family pension. According to the petitioner, the petitioner’s 2 husband was working as Talathi and on his compulsory retirement and subsequent death she is entitled to family pension. 2. The Affidavit in reply has been filed by the State and it has been stated that the petitioner’s husband was compulsory retired since he was convicted Under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted that the said conviction is upheld by the Appellate Court. 3. Sub rule 1 of Rule 26 of Maharashtra Civil Service(Pension) Rules, enable the government to withdraw the pension or part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period, if the pensioner is convicted of a serious crime or is found guilty of grave misconduct. Sub Rule 2 of the said Rule mandates the Government that an action should be taken in accordance with the said Rules, if the pensioner is convicted of a serious crime in the light of the judgment of Court relating to such conviction. Though power is given under Rules 101 of said Rules, to sanction compassionate 3 pension, it can be done only in deserving cases for special reasons. 4. Thus, it can be seen that petitioner’s husband was convicted in a serious crime and she was not entitled for pension and consequently the petitioner would not be entitled for family pension. 5. Power vested with the State Government under Rule 101 is discretionary power and that too can be exercised only when a person concerned makes out a case that he deserves special consideration. We find that, the discretion which has been exercised by the State Government in the present case cannot be termed as either arbitrary or perverse. 6. No case is made out by the petitioner and the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J ] [B.R.GAVAI, J ] SDM* 2333.94WP(J)