Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. - Heard Sri Anshu Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri C.S. Rawat, learned Additional C.S.C. appearing on behalf of the State Government and, with their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

2. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondent nos. 2 & 3 to pay the petitioner his current pension which has been stopped/discontinued from September 2018, along with arrears of pension and interest.

3. Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the present writ petition is instituted by the petitioner through his wife, as he is currently lodged in Haridwar District Jail. The petitioner, a Government Doctor in Roorkee Civil Hospital District Haridwar, retired from service, on attaining the age of superannuation, as a Medical Officer on 30.09.2013. He continued to be paid his pension till the month of August 2018, and since his pension was stopped w.e.f. September 2018, he invoked the jurisdiction of this Court.

4. According to the petitioner, he addressed a letter to the third respondent to which he received a reply on 13.09.2018 informing him that his pension has been discontinued in view of the Civil Service Regulation No. 351 whereby power is conferred on the Governor to withhold pension, or a part thereof, if the pensioner is convicted in a criminal case for a serious offence.

5. The petitioner was, admittedly, convicted for the offence under Section 304-B IPC (i.e. for dowry death). Section 304-B (1) IPC stipulates that, where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage, and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband, for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.

6. In the present case, the petitioner and his son are both presently in jail, on their conviction for the offence under Section 304-B IPC for causing the death of the petitioners daughter-in-law; and are undergoing the sentenced of rigorous imprisonment of seven years. While the order of the Trial Court, convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 304-B IPC, was passed on 28.07.2017, the petitioner was informed, by letter dated 13.09.2018, that his pension was being discontinued in the light of Regulation 351 of the Civil Service Regulations.

7. Regulation 351 stipulates that "future good" is an implied condition of every grant of a pension; and the State Government reserved to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing pension or any part of it, if the petitioner be convicted of a serious crime, or be guilty of grave misconduct.

8. In the present case, the petitioner has been convicted for an offence under Section 304-B IPC for having causing the death of his daughter-in-law because of dowry. Dowry death, under Section 304-B IPC, is undoubtedly a serious crime; and, since the petitioner has been convicted for such a crime, the respondents had the power, under Regulation 351, to withhold the pension of the petitioner.

9. Sri Anshu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that an appeal has been preferred against the order of conviction, and the sentenced imposed, by the trial Court.

10. As long as the order of the trial Court, convicting and sentencing the petitioner, continues to remain in force, the petitioner would not be entitled for grant of pension, since Regulation 351 confers power on the State Government to withhold pension of a government servant on his conviction for a serious crime. We see no reason, therefore, to interfere with the action of the respondents in withholding the petitioners pension. Suffice it to make it clear that the order now passed by us shall not disable the petitioner, if the order of conviction is set-aside in appeal or if his conviction is suspended by an Appellate Court, to then approach the authorities seeking payment of pension.

11. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.