Judgment Sri Dharamdeo Sinha, sole petitioner, has filed this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated the 9th February, 1972 (Annexure 10') passed by respondent no. 1, reducing the pension and the gratuity payable to the petitioner by 50 per cent. In his application, he has prayed for quashing the said order. 2. In order to appreciate the point involved in this application, it will be necessary to state briefly the facts. The petitioner was initially appointed as an Overseer in the year 1932 in the Irrigation Department of the Government of Bihar, and later he was promoted up to the rank of Superintending Engineer in the same Department. While the petitioner was serving as Superintending Engineer in the South Bihar Waterways Circle, Patna, he was served with an order of compulsory retirement on the 21st November, 1967, which was to take effect after the expiry of three months from the date of its service on the petitioner, i.e., with effect from the 21st February, 1968. A true copy of the said order has been marked as Annexure 1' to the application. The petitioner along with nine other officers, who had completed the age of 55 years, were ordered to compulsorily retire 'Hider Rule 74, Clause (b) of the Bihar Service Code. Subsequently, the order contained under Annexure 1' was cancelled on the 7th December, 1968 by another order contained in under Annexure 2'. On the 1st December, 1967, the petitioner received an order of suspension dated the 30th November, 1967, on certain charges of misconduct. While the petitioner was under suspension, in pursuance of the above order of the Government, he reached the age of superannuation on the 31st March, 1968, and retired from service with effect from the 1st April, 1968. After the petitioner retired from service, on the 10th May, 1968, he was served with a copy of certain charges levelled against him for a departmental proceeding and he was asked to submit his written statement before Sri K.K. Verma (respondent no. 3), the Inquiring Officer. A copy of the charges is annexed as Annexure 3'. Upon receipt of the charges, the petitioner filed a representation (Annexure 4') on the 16th may, 1968. 3), the Inquiring Officer. A copy of the charges is annexed as Annexure 3'. Upon receipt of the charges, the petitioner filed a representation (Annexure 4') on the 16th may, 1968. On the 9th February, 1972, the State Government communicated its decision to the petitioner (impugned Annexure 10') that his pension and gratuity would be reduced by 50 per cent under Rule 139(b) of the Bihar Pension Rule, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Rule). 3. On behalf of the respondents a counter-affidavit have been filed in this Court on the 9th March, 1973. In the counter-affidavit, inter alia, facts have been asserted supporting the impugned order. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Basudeva Prasad has assailed the impugned order, and contended that the said order could not have been passed without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to show cause. In order to find support to his contention, he referred to paragraph 18 of his petition of the petitioner, wherein it is specifically stated that no opportunity to show cause against the order reducing his pension and gratuity was given to the petitioner, which fact has not been denied by the respondent in the counter-affidavit. Paragraph 10 of the counter-affidavit simply mentions: "That the claim of the petitioner in para 18 is not correct, Under Rule 139(b) of the Bihar Pension Rule, amount of pension of the Government servant can be reduced to any extent if the services are not found thoroughly satisfactory" In our opinion it is mere contention or submission, it will not be read as denial of the assertion made by the petitioner in paragraph 18 with regard to any opportunity having been given to the petitioner, while passing the impugned order. 5. Mr. Prasad in order to find support to his contention has relied on a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. K.R. Erry and Sobhag Rai Alehta and State of Punjab V. Khaushal Singh. He drew our attention to paragraph 20 of the judgment (at pages 839-40). In that case also their Lordships were considering the question whether the orders imposing a cut in the pension should be set aside for the reason that the officers were not given reasonable opportunity to show cause. Their Lordships held that the law on the point was not in doubt. In that case also their Lordships were considering the question whether the orders imposing a cut in the pension should be set aside for the reason that the officers were not given reasonable opportunity to show cause. Their Lordships held that the law on the point was not in doubt. Where a body or authority was judicial or where it had to determine a matter involving rights judicially because of express or implied provision, the principle of natural justice audi alteram partem applied. Mr. Tara Kant Jha, learned Standing Counsel No-1 on behalf of the respondent contended in support of the impugned order that the same was passed under rule 139(b) of the rules, and it was not necessary to give an opportunity to the petitioner while passing the impugned order. 6. In our opinion this submission of Mr. Jha is not tenable. It will be useful to quote the provision contained under rule 139 in extenso: (a) The full pension admissible under the rules is not to be given as a matter of course, or unless the service rendered has been really approved. (b) If the service has not been thoroughly satisfactory the authority sanctioning the pension should make such reduction in the amount as it thinks proper. (c) The State Government reserve to themselves the powers of revising an order relating to pension passed by subordinate authorities under their control, if, they are satisfied that the service of the pensioner was not thoroughly satisfactory or that there was proof of grave misconduct on his part while in service. No such power shall, however, be exercised without giving' the pensioner, concerned a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to his pension, nor any such power shall be exercised after the expiry of three years from the date of the order sanctioning the pension was first passed. It may be noticed that Clause (c) of the above rule clearly lays down that no power would, however, be exercised without giving the pensioner concerned a reasonable opportunity of showing cause. That apart, in view of the observation of the Supreme Court referred to above, there is no merit in the contention of Mr. Jha. In our opinion, the impugned order cannot be sustained. It was incumbent upon the respondent to have given an opportunity to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. 7. That apart, in view of the observation of the Supreme Court referred to above, there is no merit in the contention of Mr. Jha. In our opinion, the impugned order cannot be sustained. It was incumbent upon the respondent to have given an opportunity to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. 7. In the result, the application is allowed and the impugned order contained under annexure (10) is quashed. In the circumstances, however, there will be no order as to cost. Application allowed.