Judgment J.C.S. Rawat, J. 1. This appeal under Rule 5 Chapter VIII of the High Court Rules has been filed against the judgment and order dated 14-07-2006 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court inWrit Petition No. 1469/2004 (S/S) Ex. Hav. Kishan Singh Vs. Union of India & others, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the petition. 2. A Writ Petition bearing No. 1469/2004 (S/S) was filed before the learned Single Judge by the petitioner- Ex. Hav. Kishan Singh for the following reliefs :(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the pension to the petitioner as he was getting after his retirement from service. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the arrear of his pension from the date when it was stopped alongwith interest. (iii) To pass any other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. (iv) To award cost throughout. 3. The petitioner- Ex. Hav. Kishan Singh got retirement from Army Para Regiment on 01-04-1987 and after his retirement he was getting pension regularly till 01-12-1993. Later on, an F.IR. dated 04-12-1993 was registered against the petitioner for the offence of murder and the Case Crime No. 359/93 was registered. The petitioner withdrew his pension upto the month of November, 1994 and the last payment of pension was made to him on 21-12-1994. Thereafter, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo for life imprisonment under section 302 IPC by the learned Sessions Judge, Nainital vide order dated 18-05-1995. Thereafter, the Deputy Treasury Officer, Tanakpur sought a clarification from the Senior Treasury Officer, Nainital as to whether he should continue to pay the pension to the petitioner even after the conviction & sentence of life imprisonment under section 302 IPC of the petitioner. The Senior Account Officer (Pension), Allahabad on the query made by the Senior Treasury Officer, Nainital at the behest of Deputy Treasury Officer, Tanakpur directed not to pay the pension to the petitioner and keep the payment of pension suspended. On 09-07-1999 the petitioner was released on bail from Allahabad High Court in appeal and he was released from jail on 24-071999. Thereafter, he made certain representations to the authorities concerned with the request to release his pension. On 09-07-1999 the petitioner was released on bail from Allahabad High Court in appeal and he was released from jail on 24-071999. Thereafter, he made certain representations to the authorities concerned with the request to release his pension. When no heed was paid to his representations, the petitioner filed the writ petition before the learned Single Judge of this Court. 4. The counter affidavit was filed by the Senior Treasury Officer (respondent no.4) against the writ petition stating therein that the petitioner has taken his pension upto the month of November, 2004. After his conviction, the pension of the petitioner was stopped by the department. It was further alleged that the petitioner is not entitled to get pension till the acquittal is made in the appeal. Other respondents had not filed the counter affidavit. 5. After hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge has allowed writ petition vide. impugned order dated 14-07-2006. It was held by the learned Single Judge that the pension of the petitioner was stopped from 01-12-1993 and he was convicted & sentenced to undergo for life imprisonment under section 302 IPC on 18-05-1995 by the Sessions Judge, Nainital. The High Court in Appeal has suspended the order of conviction and released him on bail. On the basis of this, the learned Single Judge was of the view that there is no reason for the respondents to withhold the pension of the petitioner. The learned Single Judge directed the respondents to pass appropriate orders regarding the grant of regular pension to the petitioner and the entire arrears of the pensions should be paid to the petitioner within one month from the date of production of certified copy of the impugned order. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the present special appeal has been preferred by the appellants (department). 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Learned Assistant Solicitor General for the appellants contended that the learned Single Judge has erred in holding that the petitioner was entitled to get the pension even after his conviction awarded by the learned Sessions Judge under section 302 IPC. It was further contended that the petitioner was retired from the Army Para Regiment in the year 1987 and he was getting pension regularly. It was further contended that the petitioner was retired from the Army Para Regiment in the year 1987 and he was getting pension regularly. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo for life imprisonment under section 302 IPC in the year 1995 and accordingly the pension of the petitioner was withheld by the Pension Disbursing Authority. The petitioner remained in custody in Bareilly jail from 24-05-1995 to 24-07 -1999. It was further contended that as per Chapter IV A of Para 82 (a) of Pension Regulations 1961 Part II provides that if a pensioner is sentenced to imprisonment for a criminal offence his pension shall be suspended from the date of his imprisonment. It was further contended that the petitioner was not entitled to get the pension after the conviction of life imprisonment recorded by the Sessions Judge, Nainital in view of Chapter IV APara 82(a) & (b) of the Pension Regulations 1961 Part II. Chapter IV A of Para 82 (d) of Pension Regulations, 1961 Part II provides that if a pensioner is sentenced to imprisonment for a criminal offence by a lower court but is acquitted, on appeal, by a higher court the pension withheld shall be restored. It was further contended on behalf of the appellants that the learned Single Judge had erred in relying upon para 7 of the rejoinder affidavit. It was further contended on behalf of the appellants that the learned Single Judge has erred in holding that the sentence of the petitioner was suspended by the High Court. 9. The perusal of the record reveals that it is not disputed to the parties that the petitioner- Ex. Hav. Kishan Singh was convicted & sentenced to undergo for life imprisonment under section 302 IPC by the learned Sessions Judge, Nainital vide order dated 18-05-1995. It is also not disputed that the petitioner was released on bail by the High Court in appeal and his appeal is still pending for disposal before the High Court. It is admitted to the parties that the petitioner was only released on bail by the High Court and the conviction & sentence awarded by the Sessions Judge was not suspended by the High Court. 10. Before proceeding with the contentions of the parties, we would like to refer the Regulation 82 of Pension Regulations Part II, 1961 which is quoted below:"82. 10. Before proceeding with the contentions of the parties, we would like to refer the Regulation 82 of Pension Regulations Part II, 1961 which is quoted below:"82. Suspension, discontinuance or withholding of pension of a pensioner who is convicted of a crime by Court of Law or is guilty of grave misconduct not of a political nature. If a pensioner is convicted of a crime by court of law or is guilty of grave misconduct, which is not of a political nature, the following procedure shall be followed :- . a) If a pensioner is sentenced to imprisonment for a criminal offence, his pension shall be suspended from the date of his imprisonment and the case reported by the Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions) for the order of the competent authority. In a case where a pensioner is kept in police or jail custody as an under-trial prisoner and is eventually sentenced to a term of imprisonment for a criminal offence, the suspension of pension shall take effect from the date of imprisonment only. b) The competent authority shall decide in consultation with the Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions) and if necessary, with the civil authorities also whether the offence is a serious one and if so, he shall order the removal of the pensioner's name from pension list, from the date of the commencement of his imprisonment. Pension thereupon shall cease to be payable from that date. c) If the competent authority decides that the offence is not so serious as to justify the removal of the pensioner's name from the pension list, it shall not be removed, the payment of arrears of pension due from the date of last payment before imprisonment shall be made on release from prison. , d) If a pensioner is sentenced to imprisonment for a criminal offence by a lower court but is acquitted, on appeal, by a higher court the pension withheld shall be restored. e) If a pensioner is in imprisonment for debt, pension shall continue to be paid. f) If a pensioner is guilty of grave misconduct not falling under the preceding clauses, it shall at once be reported to the competent authority who may, if he considers it justifiable, order the suspension of his pension from a. date to be specified. e) If a pensioner is in imprisonment for debt, pension shall continue to be paid. f) If a pensioner is guilty of grave misconduct not falling under the preceding clauses, it shall at once be reported to the competent authority who may, if he considers it justifiable, order the suspension of his pension from a. date to be specified. The competent authority shall subsequently investigate the case in consultation with the Chief Controller of Defence Account (Pensions) and if necessary the civil authorities, (i) either authorize the withholding of pension in whole or in part from a date to be specified by him not earlier than the date of original suspension, or, (ii) authorize continuance in full. g) If a pensioner is convicted by a foreign court (including Nepal) or is imprisoned in a Jail outside India for a serious crime of a non-political nature, his case will be referred to the Government of India through the Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions) for a decision on the question of reduction / forfeiture or restoration of pension. Clause (a) above will apply in these cases also. h) Where an individual/pensioner is convicted of serious crime by a Court of Law, action to withhold or withdraw gratuity and pension or a part thereof shall be taken by the competent authority in the light of the judgment of the court and other provisions of this Chapter. " 11. Learned Single Judge had quoted the regulation from para 7 of the rejoinder affidavit which is as follows :"7. That it is pertinent to mention here that the Regulation 4 & 5 of Pension Regulation for the Army 1961, the pension may be withheld / suspended / or discontinued in very special circumstances when he is prosecuted under the following sections of the I.PC. (a) U/S 121 - Waging war against the Govt. (b) 122 - Collecting arms with intention of waging war against the Govt. (c) 124 - Assaulting the President / Governor etc. with intend to compel or restrain the exercise of any lawful power. (d) 124-A - Sedition (e) 131 - Mutiny or Abetting Hence the petitioner is not charged for any of these grounds on the basis of which pension can only be suspended / withheld / or discontinued and for any other charges according to the circumstances pension can only be reduced." 12. (d) 124-A - Sedition (e) 131 - Mutiny or Abetting Hence the petitioner is not charged for any of these grounds on the basis of which pension can only be suspended / withheld / or discontinued and for any other charges according to the circumstances pension can only be reduced." 12. The aforesaid regulations referred by the learned Single Judge do not find place in the Pension Regulation, 1961. Regulations 4 to 7 of Chapter I General Regulations is quoted below :"Cases not covered by regulations ;"4. Cases not covered by the regulations but deemed worthy of special consideration may be submitted to the Government through the usual channels and the Accounts Officer concerned. 5 to 7 blank. " 13. Thus, there are no regulations 5, 6 and 7 in this regard under Pension Regulation, 1961. 14. Perusal of the Regulation 82 of Pension Regulations Part II, 196.1 reveals that the appellants (department) were competent to withhold I suspend the pension of the petitioner from 18-05-1995 - the date of sentence of life imprisonment under section 302 IPC. The Regulation further provides that if the petitioner is acquitted on appeal by the higher court the pension withheld would be restored. In the instant case, the conviction and the sentence of the petitioner have not been suspended by the High Court and the appeal is still pending before the High Court. The petitioner had simply been granted bail by the High Court and his appeal is still pending for disposal. Therefore, we are of the view that the appellants had rightly suspended the pension of the petitioner when the petitioner was convicted under section 302 IPC. 15. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the pension of the petitioner had been stopped by the authority w.e.f. December, 1994 and at least he was entitled to get the pension from December, 1994 to 18th May, 1995 till he was convicted. Smt. Jayanti Hyanki, Chief Treasury Officer, Nainital (respondent no. 4 in the writ petition) has filed the counter affidavit stating therein that the treasury had paid the pension to the petitioner upto the month of November, 1994. In view of the Regulation 82 of Pension Regulations Part II, 1961, the petitioner is entitled to get the pension till the date of his conviction. 4 in the writ petition) has filed the counter affidavit stating therein that the treasury had paid the pension to the petitioner upto the month of November, 1994. In view of the Regulation 82 of Pension Regulations Part II, 1961, the petitioner is entitled to get the pension till the date of his conviction. We are of the view that the petitioner is entitled to get the pension w.e.f December, 1994 to the date of conviction i.e. 1805-1995, if it has not been paid by the department. 16. In view of the above, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was not justified in holding that there was no reason for the respondents to withhold the pension of the petitioner. Learned Single Judge was not justified in directing the respondents to pass appropriate order regarding the grant of regular pension to the petitioner from the date when the petitioner has not been paid the pension inspite of conviction order passed by the learned Sessions Judge under section 302 IPC. Learned Single Judge was not justified in directing the respondents to pay the entire arrears till date within one month. As a matter of fact, the petitioner was only entitled to get the pension for the period from December, 1994 to 18th May 1995 and he was not entitled to get the rest arrears of the pension. 17. Therefore, the impugned judgment dated 14-07-2006 of learned Single Judge is liable to set aside to the above extent. The Special Appeal deserves to be partly allowed and is hereby partly allowed only to the above extent. It is further directed that the respondents shall only pay the pension of the petitioner for the period from December, 1994 to 18-05-1995 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The Writ Petition No. 1469 (S/ S)/2004 is also disposed of accordingly. Parties shall bear their own costs in both the courts.