JUDGMENT : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. The petitioner was working as a Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ministry of Cooperation, Marketing and Textiles. While in service, the petitioner was sent on deputation to work as Secretary, Agriculture Produce Market Committee at Nagpur (“APMC” for short) in the year 1988 where he worked till 31.05.1992 when he attained the age of superannuation as an employee of the State Government. Upon his superannuation, the petitioner joined the employment of APMC with effect from 01.06.1992 and in the year 1995 he retired from the service of the APMC also. 2. While working on deputation as Secretary of APMC, the establishment of APMC forwarded the proposals on 09.05.1992 and 28.05.1992 to the State Government for granting permission to employ the petitioner in APMC as a Secretary, upon his superannuation from the services of the State Government. No response was received and the petitioner joined his employment with APMC on 01.06.1992. The petitioner was issued show cause notice dated 09.02.1993 under Rules 163 (1) and (3) (c) (f) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (‘Pension Rules’ for short), as to why the pension drawn by the petitioner upon his superannuation from the State Government should not be withdrawn, as it was found that the petitioner was drawing emoluments in the re-employment more than one which he was getting while in service of the State Government. The petitioner submitted his explanation and second show-cause notice was issued to him on 27.05.1993 to which the petitioner submitted reply on 07.06.1993. 3. The petitioner challenged both these show-cause notices by filing Original Application No.419/1993 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal at Nagpur. The proceedings of show cause notice were stayed. During the pendency of the said Original Application, the State Government passed an order dated 05.01.1995 withdrawing the proceedings of show-cause and granting the petitioner post-facto permission for employment in APMC with effect from 01.06.1992 i.e. the date on which the petitioner joined his re employment. This order imposed certain conditions on which the petitioner was granted permission which included : (i) return of the entire amount of pension which the petitioner received from the State Government from 01.06.1992 till 05.01.1995; and (ii) to refund the difference of the amount of salary last drawn by the petitioner under the State Government and the salary which the petitioner received upon his re-employment under the APMC. It is not in dispute that the last pay drawn by the petitioner was of Rs. 4000/- whereas on re-employment the petitioner started getting an amount of Rs.5,805/- per month. 4. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal by its judgment and order dated 03.01.2002 dismissed the Original Application No. 419/1993 filed by the petitioner recording the finding that the petitioner secured employment in “commercial establishment” without prior permission of the State Government which was covered by sub-rule (8)of Rule 163 of the Pension Rules and by re-employment, the petitioner was earning profit which would amount to his commercial employment and apart from this, whether he is employed in “non-commercial employment”, is a fact which is not relevant. The Tribunal has taken a view that the re-employment of the petitioner was in violation of the statutory provisions of Rule 163(6) of the Pension Rules and, therefore, the respondents are granted liberty to take suitable disciplinary action against the petitioner even to recover the pension paid to him from 01.06.1992 till the date of the delivery of judgment by the Tribunal on 03.01.2002. This is the subject-matter of challenge in this petition. 5. We have heard Shri Chinmay Dharmadhikari, the learned counsel holding for Shri Uday Dastane, for the petitioner and Shri V. P. Maldhure, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no. 1. We find that basically two questions are involved in the matter : (i) whether the “employment” of the petitioner in APMC Nagpur with effect from 01.06.1992 amounts to the ‘commercial employment’ as defined in sub-rule 8(a) (i) of Rule 163 of the Pension Rules, and (ii) whether the respondent was competent to impose the conditions for grant of permission in the order dated 05.01.1995 issued under Rule 163(6) of the Pension Rules, to deprive the pension payable to the petitioner upon his superannuation from the services of the State Government. 6. Shri Dharmadhikari, for the petitioner has taken us through the provisions of Sections 11, 12(2), 13(2), 31, 36(1) and 37 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development & Regulation) Act, 1963 and the definition of ‘commercial employment’ in sub-rule (8) of Rule 163 of the Pension Rules, to urge that the APMC is a statutory body incorporated under Section 12 performing the functions of regulating the marketing activities, to prevent the exploitation of the farmers and is working under the complete supervision and control of the State Government. The sources of revenue of the Market Committee are under Section 31. The constitution of market fund and the expenses for which the fund is required to be utilized are stipulated under Sections 36 and 37 of the APMC Act. As such, according to him, the possibility of the APMC being called as “commercial establishment” is completely ruled out. He has also urged that once the permission is granted by the State Government under Rule 163(6) of the Pension Rules after withdrawing the show cause notice issued, the only ground on which the pension could be withdrawn is of the breach of any of the conditions specified in the order granting permission of re-employment. He therefore submits that the State Government was not competent, having once granted such permission, to withdraw the pensionary benefits. 7. Shri Maldhure, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent no.1 invited our attention to the reply filed by the respondents in response to the present petition, in which a stand is taken that the employment of the petitioner in APMC on the post of Secretary, is a “commercial employment” as defined under sub-rule (8) (a) (i) of Rule 163 of the Pension Rules and that the petitioner having undertaken the work involving liaison or contract with the officers or the officers of the Government as contemplated by sub-rule (8)(a) (iii) of Rule 163 of the Pension Rules, the State Government was competent to pass an order of withdrawal of pension and putting the conditions in the order granting permission. 8. Sub-rules (2) ad (3) of Rule 163 of the Pension Rules being relevant, are reproduced below : “163. Commercial employment after retirement. – (1)..... (2) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (3), the Government may, by order in writing on the application made under sub-rule (1), grant permission, subject to such conditions, if any, as it may deem necessary, or refuse permission for reasons to be recorded in the order, to such pensioner to take up the commercial employment specified in the application. (2) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (3), the Government may, by order in writing on the application made under sub-rule (1), grant permission, subject to such conditions, if any, as it may deem necessary, or refuse permission for reasons to be recorded in the order, to such pensioner to take up the commercial employment specified in the application. (3) In granting or refusing permission under sub rule (2) to a pensioner for taking up any commercial employment, the Government shall have regard to the following factors, namely: (a) the nature of the employment proposed to be taken up and the antecedents of the employee; (b) whether his duties in the employment which he proposed to take up might be such as to bring him into conflict with Government; (c) whether the pensioner while in service had any such dealing with the employer under whom he proposed to seek employment as might afford a reasonable basis for the suspicion that such pensioner had shown favour to such employer; (d) whether the duties of the commercial employment proposed involve liaison or contract work with government departments; (e) whether his commercial duties will be such that his previous official position or knowledge or experience under Government could be used to give the proposed employer an unfair advantage; (f) the emoluments offered by the proposed employer; and (g) any other relevant factors.” There is no total prohibition for re-employment of the Government servant in commercial establishment immediately upon his/her superannuation from the Government service. The commercial employment is permissible by obtaining permission under sub-rule (2) of Rule 163 reproduced above. There is no prohibition for securing re employment by the Government servant upon retirement and in non commercial employment. If the application is made for grant of such permission, the Government may grant or refuse to grant such permission for the reasons to be recorded in the order, in terms of sub rule (2) of Rule 163. The factors which are to be taken into consideration by the Government while granting or refusing to grant such permission are enumerated under sub-rule (3) of Rule 163. 9. The factors which are to be taken into consideration by the Government while granting or refusing to grant such permission are enumerated under sub-rule (3) of Rule 163. 9. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 163 of the Pension Rules provides for the consequences of taking up commercial employment by any Government servant before expiry of two years from the date of his retirement without obtaining prior permission of the Government and also of committing breach of any conditions subject to which the permission to take up any commercial establishment has been granted. In both these events, the consequences provided are the same that the Government becomes competent to declare by an order in writing and for the reasons to be recorded therein that such Government servant shall not be entitled to the whole or such part of pension and for such period as may be specified in the order. 10. If the re-employment of the petitioner in APMC is not covered by the expression ‘commercial employment’ as defined in sub rule (8) of Rule 163 of Pension Rules, then it was not necessary for the petitioner to have obtained the prior permission of the State Government while joining the service in APMC. However, it is not necessary for us to consider the argument of Shri Dharmadhikari that the petitioner’s re employment in APMC was under a body corporate wholly or specifically controlled by the State Government and, therefore, excluded from the definition of “commercial employment”. The reason being that the State Government has already granted permission that too with effect from the date on which the petitioner was reemployed in the services of the APMC with effect from 01.06.1992. 11. Once the permission was granted for re-employment to the petitioner with effect from 01.06.1992, it was not permissible for the respondents to withdraw whole or any part of the pension available to the petitioner, without having come before the court with a case of the breach of the terms and conditions of such permission. After going through the order granting permission passed by the State Government, we find that the permission granted is totally unconditional and still the petitioner is made to suffer the consequences of withdrawing the pension. In our view, this is not permissible under sub-rule (6) of Rule 163 of the Pension Rules. After going through the order granting permission passed by the State Government, we find that the permission granted is totally unconditional and still the petitioner is made to suffer the consequences of withdrawing the pension. In our view, this is not permissible under sub-rule (6) of Rule 163 of the Pension Rules. Once the permission is granted, the question as to whether the petitioner has undertaken the work involving liaison or a contract with the Officers or the Officers of the Government without narrating specific instances, would hardly be of any relevance. The State Government is deemed to have taken into consideration the factors specified in sub-rule (3) of Rule 163, while granting permission. We therefore, find that the State Government was not competent to pass an order of withdrawal of pension while granting permission to the petitioner for re-employment by an order dated 5th January, 1995. 12. Coming to the finding recorded by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, we are unable to subscribe the view taken that even if the employment of the petitioner is considered to be one in non commercial, still if the petitioner gets benefits and profits from his re employment in violation of the statutory provisions of law, he has to face suitable disciplinary action for recovery of pension paid to him from 01.06.1992 till the date of the judgment. Merely because the petitioner started drawing more emoluments upon his re-employment than one which he was getting while in the employment of the State Government, that by itself, would not be enough to attract the penalty under sub-rule (6) of Rule 163 of the Pension Rules. We, therefore, cannot sustain the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dismissing the Original Application filed by the petitioner. 13. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed. The judgment and order dated 03.01.2002 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.419/1992 is hereby quashed and set aside. The Original Application No.419/1993 is allowed. The order dated 05.01.1995 passed by the State Government to the extent it proposes to recover the amount of pension paid to the petitioner and to make adjustments cannot be sustained and the same is therefore quashed and set aside. The respondents shall continue to pay the regular full pension to the petitioner upon his superannuation with effect from 31.05.1992, if there is no other impediment. 14. The respondents shall continue to pay the regular full pension to the petitioner upon his superannuation with effect from 31.05.1992, if there is no other impediment. 14. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.