JUDGMENT S. B. Sinha, J.-In this application, the petitioner has prayed for punishing the opposite parties under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 for wilful disobedience of the order dated 4.1.1990 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in C.W. J. C. No. 2163 of 1989 (R). 2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. 3. The petitioner on the date of his superannuation, that is 31.8.1980 was posted as Assistant Jailor, Daltonganj at Palamau. According to the petitioner, the pay last drawn by him was Rs. 420/-and he had been receiving a provisional pension of Rs. 304/-only. As despite the fact that the petitioner superannuated in 1980, his pension and other retiral benefits had not been finalised he filed a writ petition in this Court which was registered as C.W.J.C. 2163 of 1989 (R). 4. By an order dated 4.1.1990, this Court passed the following order :- "The petitioner superannuated with effect from 31.8.80 and his grievance is that he is still getting provisional pension. Let this case be listed under the same heading after eight weeks. It is ordered that the concerned respondents shall finalise the case of the petitioner so that authority slip for the payment of arrear pension as well as pension at the amount he is entitled to receive is issued within that time. If the order is not complied with within that time, appropriate action will be taken against the defaulting respondents. 5. The matter again came up before this Court on 2.3.1990 when the following order was passed :- "It was submitted by Mr. Dubey that his case has not been finalised although ordered by this Court on 4.1.90. The petitioner may file an application for initiating a contempt of court proceeding against the concerned respondent. Mr. Debi Prasad produced a note of the Accountant General to show that as the State Govt. has not sanctioned the payment of pension, no action on the part of the Accountant General would be taken." 6. The petitioner, thereafter communicated the aforementioned orders dated 4.1.1990 to the cancerned authorities. The Jail Superintendent Palamau also by his letter dated 12.5. 1990 asked the Accountant General to finalise the matter relating to payment of pension. From a perusal of the said letter, however, it appears that therein a request was made to the Accountant General that a sum of Rs. The Jail Superintendent Palamau also by his letter dated 12.5. 1990 asked the Accountant General to finalise the matter relating to payment of pension. From a perusal of the said letter, however, it appears that therein a request was made to the Accountant General that a sum of Rs. 89522.06 being recoverable from the petitioner the said amount be adjusted from the account of final pension payable to the petitioner by way of his retiral benefits. 7. In this case, separate show causes have been filed by the contemners/opposite parties nos. 2, 3 and 4. Upon perusal of the show cause filed by the Inspector General of Prisons by order dated 1.5.1991, a Division Bench of this Court observed as follows :- "Today, the Superintendent of Jail Daltonganj and Inspector General Prisons these two officers are present. They have also filed their show cause. The Inspector General Prisons in his show cause has annexed a document marked Annexure A/3 which appears to be pension payment order dated 29.5.1990 which provided (a) payment of pension from 1980 to 1982 at the rate of Rs. 304/-(b) for recovery of a sum of Rs. 89522 and odd and (0) for adjustment of Rs. 804.04 ps. from the pension payment order. The petitioner stated that he has never received this pension payment order nor did he face any proceeding ever after his retirement of these 10 long years. He has been told now that dues of Rs. 89522 and odd stands to his credit. Mr. Roy appearing on behalf of Inspector General, Prisons states that this amount has been fixed by Accountant General and, therefore. Accountant General is the proper person to spell it out. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand states that last time in the writ application Accountant General appeared and stated that he is unaware of anything since papers were never sent to him. In view of the stand taken in the show cause, we allow the petitioner to add the Accountant General, Bihar as a party to this case. 2. Let notice be issued to the Accountant General Bihar along with a copy of this order. The Accountant General Bihar on his appearance will spell out about this sum and why when the petitioner started for contempt of court this demand has been made and not earlier. 3. 2. Let notice be issued to the Accountant General Bihar along with a copy of this order. The Accountant General Bihar on his appearance will spell out about this sum and why when the petitioner started for contempt of court this demand has been made and not earlier. 3. The appearance of these two officers is dispensed with for the present. 4. Put up this matter after annual vacation.” Thereafter, a show cause had been filed on 26.6.1991 by the Accountant General also. 8. On 4.7.1991, a supplementary show cause has also been filed on behalf of Inspector General Prisons. 9. In the show cause filed by the opposite party, it was contended that a pension payment order had already been issued by the Accountant General on 29.5.1990 which is contained in Annexure-A to the show cause filed by the opposite party no. 2 and Annexure A/3 to the show cause filed by opposite party no. 3: From a perusal whereof it appears that therein the following note was given:- “(1) Prov. Pon. @ Rs. 273.60 w. e. f. 1.9.80 to 31.8.82 and thereafter Rs. 304/to till the date of payments to be adjusted. (2) A sum of Rs. 89522.06 may also be recovered from his P. P. O. (3) Excess amount of D.C.R.G. of Rs. 804. 04 may also be adjusted from his P.P.O." 10. In a supplementary show cause filed by the opposite party no. 3 (Inspector General, Prisons Bihar) it was contended that in the Pension Payment Order, the Accountant General has directed to recover a sum of Rs. 89522.06 ps. It was further submitted that the petitioner had managed to get the service records misplaced and considerable time had been consumed in searching and reconstructing the same, as a result whereof a delay in finalising the pension of the petitioner was caused. It was further contended that the accounts of the District Jail was audited and by a letter dated 16.12.1978 issued by the Controller of Accounts, Finance (Audit) Department, a case of misappropriation for a sum of Rs. 84077.06 ps. against the petitioner was recorded. Allegedly copies of those reports were sent to the petitioner on 8.3.1982 by the Superintendent District Jail, Dhanbad and he was asked to explain the matter, but the petitioner did not submit any explanation. 84077.06 ps. against the petitioner was recorded. Allegedly copies of those reports were sent to the petitioner on 8.3.1982 by the Superintendent District Jail, Dhanbad and he was asked to explain the matter, but the petitioner did not submit any explanation. It was further alleged that similarly the records of the District Jail, Daltonganj had also been audited and misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 15143/-by the petitioner was recorded in respect whereof also the petitioner was asked to explain by' the Superintendent, District Jail, Daltonganj by his letters dated 13.8.82, but the said letter has not been replied to by the petitioner. The Superintendent allegedly by his letter dated 20.10.1983 reported the matter to the Department stating that as the petitioner had neither been coming in the office of the Superintendent nor submitting any explanation, so the 'discrepant amount also stands for recovery from the petitioner', According to the opposite party no. 3, therefore, in such a situation, there was no other option but to get the misappropriated amount adjusted from the amount of pension and gratuity of the petitioner. 12. The petitioner has, Inter alia, contended in reply filed to the aforementioned show cause that the direction of the Department to the Accountant General to deduct a sum of Rs. 89522.06 ps. from pension of the petitioner was illegal. It was further alleged that the Service Book of the petitioner was with the Jailor or Assistant Jailor in-charge of the Establishment in their safe custody and only with a view to harass the petitioner wrong facts have been stated. 13. The petitioner in his reply further stated as follows :- "That it is stated and submitted that so far parargraph 8 is concerned that is not correct and the same is denied. 13. The petitioner in his reply further stated as follows :- "That it is stated and submitted that so far parargraph 8 is concerned that is not correct and the same is denied. At that time petitioner was posted at Daltonganj Jail and if any alleged letter sent in the office of Superintendent Daltonganj Jail for that petitioner is not at all responsible as petitioner was never relieved between these period by the Jail Superintendent Palamau to defame himself regarding the statement of paragraph 8 and as such so far audit report is concerned petitioner is not at all responsible as petitioner did not get opportunity to meet the audit objection and without initiating any departmental proceeding respondent wants to deduct the amount which is highly illegal, so petitioner humbly summits that paragraph 8 is concocted and as such it has got no leg to stand at this stage. 11. That it is stated and submitted that so far paragraph 9 of the show cause is concerned that is wrong petitioner has never got opportunity to meet the audit objection as stated by the respondent in paragraph 9 of the show cause, and petitioner was never asked any explanation so far paragraph 9 of the show cause filled by opposite party no. 3 is false and that is not at all relevant for consideration. 12. That it is stated and submitted that from the show cause, which has been filed by the opposite party, it is clear that no departmental proceeding has been initiated by the concerned respondents and arbitrary respondent!; want to deduct Rs. 89522.06 from the pension of the petitioner for which respondent has got no authority under the law." 14. It has further been contended that as no departmental proceeding was initiated as against the petitioner the question of direction for any recovery of any amount from the pension of the petitioner does not arise. 15. In his show cause, the Accountant General has submitted that there had been no wilful disobedience of this Court's order on his part inasmuch as pension Payment Order was issued on 29.5.1990 immediately upon receipt of the letter from the Superintendent Jail dated 12th May, 1990. It has been contended that a sum of Rs. 89522.06 ps. was directed to be deducted from the amount of pension of the petitioner as per the request of the Superintendent of Jail, Daltonganj. 16. It has been contended that a sum of Rs. 89522.06 ps. was directed to be deducted from the amount of pension of the petitioner as per the request of the Superintendent of Jail, Daltonganj. 16. Mr. B. K. Dubey learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised a short contention in support of this case. Learned counsel submitted that before this Court in C.W.J.C. 2163 on 89989 (R), the contemner opposite parties never raised any question that the petitioner is guilty of defalcating any amount as alleged by the contemner-opposite party nos. 2 and 3. Learned counsel submitted that assuming that a charge of defalcation as against the petitioner was pending, no direction to deduct the said amount could have been Issued in absence of any proceedings drawn up as against him in terms of Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. 17. Learned counsel in this connection has relied upon a decision of this Court in Dr. Jyotinder Sahay vs. The State of Bihar & others reported in 1991 (1) PLJR 637 . 18. Mr. Narayan Roy learned Government Advocate appearing for contemner-opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4, on the other hand submitted that the question as to whether the direction of the opposite party to deduct a sum of Rs. 85522.06 was legal or not cannot be determined in this application in respect whereof the petitioner may tile a separate writ application. According to the learned counsel, the jurisdiction of this Court is a limited one and is confined to the question of determining as to whether there has been a wilful violation of the lawful order passed by this Court or not and while exercising such a jurisdiction, this Court cannot issue any other direction which play fall for consideration in an appropriate proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if such a petition is filed by the petitioner. 19. It is true that jurisdiction of this Court in terms of the provisions of the Contempt of Court's Act, 1971 is to find out as to whether there had been a wilful violation of this Court's order by the contemner opposite party or not. But, in my oponion, in a given situation, this Court is not precluded in passing an appropriate order in the interest of justice. 20. In R. M. Ramani vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh & ors. But, in my oponion, in a given situation, this Court is not precluded in passing an appropriate order in the interest of justice. 20. In R. M. Ramani vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh & ors. reported in AIR 1991 SC 1171 , the Supreme Court held that technically there may be no case for punishment for contempt, but it observed: "If a specific direction is necessary, we issue it here and now." The Supreme Court in that case, thereafter, gave direction making it clear that the petitioner of that case was entitled to monetary benefits consequent upon his promotion to be given on a notional basis. 21. From the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramani's case aforementioned, it is clear that in a given case, the Court may issue appropriate direction if it becomes necessary in the interest of justice. 22. The Supreme Court in Sita Ram Saba v. Smt. Lalpari Devi and others reported in 1991 (2) PLJR 44 (SC) was considering a case where an eviction order was stayed by the Supreme Court, but allegedly the respondent demolished the premises. In that case, the demolition was sought to be justified by the contemner-opposite parties on the basis of an alleged direction to the effect by the Darbhanga Regional Development Authority. It was observed:- “We take a lenient view of the matter, but not without directions. We direct that the respondents shall reconstruct the portion of the building which is to be given to the petitioner within six months from today and he shall be re-inducted into the premises immediately thereafter. The petitioner shall be re-inducted as a tenant not for three years as stated by Panchayat but just like any other tenant without term as to period. The petitioner shall not be asked to pay enhanced rent or prevailing rent for the new premises but the old rent only. The petitioner will be at liberty to mention if there is any difficulty." It is, therefore, evident that in that case also, the Supreme Court had issued directions in the interest of justice although it did not punish the contemner-opposite party. 23. The petitioner will be at liberty to mention if there is any difficulty." It is, therefore, evident that in that case also, the Supreme Court had issued directions in the interest of justice although it did not punish the contemner-opposite party. 23. From the facts as mentioned hereinbefore, it is evident that although grave charges were made as against the petitioner, no departmental proceeding was initiated as against him while he was in service, nor any proceedings as contemplated under the provisions of the Bihar Pension Rules bas been initiated. 24. Rule 43 of the Bihar' Pension Rules read as follows :- "43 (a) Future good conduct is an implied condition of every grant of a pension. The Provincial Government reserve to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, if the pensioner is convicted of serious crime or be guilty of grave misconduct. The decision of the Provincial Government on any question of withholding or withdrawing the whole or any part of a pension under this rule, shall be final and conclusive. (b) The State Government further reserve to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period, and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss cau3ed to Government if the pensioner is, found in departmental or judicia1 proceeding to have been guilty of grave misconduct; or to have caused pecuniary los8 to Government by misconduct or negligence, during his service including service rendered on re-employment after retirement: Provided that- (a) such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment. (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the State Government. (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the State Government. (ii) shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceedings; and (iii) shall be conducted by such authority and at such place or places as the State Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to proceedings on which an order of dismissal from service ma, be made; (b) judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was on duty either before retirement or during reemployment, shall have been instituted in accordance with sub-clause (ii) of clause (a); and (c) the Bihar Public Service Commission, shall be consulted before final orders are passed." 25. From a bare perusal of the aforementioned Rules, it is evident that an order for withholding or withdrawing the pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period, can be passed only if the conditions precedent there for are fulfilled. 26. The said conditions are mentioned in proviso appended to clause (b) of Rule 43 of the Bihar Pension Rules. 27. In Union of India v. Wing Commander R. R. Hingorani reported in (1987) 1 Supreme Court Cases 551, the Supreme Court held that in view of the provisions of section 11 of the Pension Act, 1871, no attachment, seizure or sequestration can be made in respect of a pension or money due or to become due on account of any such pension. 28. In that view of the matter, there cannot be any doubt that no order of deduction could have been issued by the respondents from the amount of pension and gratuity payable to a retired employee, for recovery of any such amount, recourse may be had to the provisions of Rule 43 of the Bihar Pension Rules or file a suit for recovery thereof if the lame is permissible in law. 29. This aspect of the matter has been fully considered by a Division Bench in Thakur Alakh Niranjan Singh v. State of Bihar in C.W.J.C. No. 2248 of 1988 disposed of on 9.12.1988. In that case it was held :- "Plea in the counter affidavit is to the effect that gratuity is paid for rendering satisfactory and good service to the employer, that is to say, the Government of the State. In that case it was held :- "Plea in the counter affidavit is to the effect that gratuity is paid for rendering satisfactory and good service to the employer, that is to say, the Government of the State. We find that the State by instituting a civil action for realisation of the said amount of Rs. 20000/- against the petitioner, in the event of a decree in its hand also, could not attach or withhold the claim of gratuity in view of the provisions in section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That goes to show that withholding of gratuity which is the incident of the retirement of a Government servant, is without any legal authority. The District Magistrate was not vested with any such jurisdiction to make order to withhold payment of gratuity to the petitioner." 30. In Dr. Jyotindra Sahay v. State of Bihar and others reported in 1991 (1) PLJR 637 , a learned single Judge of this Court took into consideration a resolution of the State of Bihar being no. 3014 F dated 31.7.1980; the relevant portion whereof reads as follows ; "If till the date of retirement of a Government servant any kind of departmental enquiry, criminal case, judicial enquiry, etc. have not been started against the Government servant then in that situation the pension granting authority shall have no power to stop the pension in any circumstance whatsoever. It further provides that rule 43 of the Bihar Pension Rules is a statutory rule and. therefore, any action in contravention of the same by different department to stop pension by adopting different proceedings as also the necessity of obtaining integrity certificate from Vigilance Department would stand automatically revoked." Upon consideration thereof as also Rule 43 of the Bihar Pension Rules, it was held :- "The admitted position is that on the date of retirement charges against the pensioner were never issued to him and he had not been placed under suspension from an earlier date. Therefore, there was no departmental proceeding instituted against the petitioner and there was no judicial proceeding against him. In this view, the State Government had no right of withholding or withdrawing the pension or any part of it. Therefore, there was no departmental proceeding instituted against the petitioner and there was no judicial proceeding against him. In this view, the State Government had no right of withholding or withdrawing the pension or any part of it. The petitioners Case is fully covered under para 7 (kha) of the aforesaid Finance Department's Resolution issued on the 31st July 1980 and it has to be held that the pension granting authority had no power to stop the pension and gratuity of the petitioner." 31. In D. V. Kapoor v. Union of India and others reported in AIR 1990 S.C. 1923 , the Supreme Court was considering the provisions of Rule 9 of the Civil Service Pension Rules 1972 which is in pari-mataria with Rule 43 of the Bihar Pension Rules. The Supreme Court upon consideration of its earlier decision in D. S. Nakara v. Union of India reported in AIR 1983 SC 130 held :- "Rule 9 of the rules empowers the President only to withhold or withdraw pension permanently or for a specified period in whole or in part or to order recovery of pecuniary loss caused to the State in whole or in part subject to minimum. The employee's right to pension is a statutory right. The measure of deprivation therefore must be correlative to or commensurate with the gravity of the grave misconduct or irregularity as it offends the right to assistance at the evening of his life as assured under Art. 41 of the Constitution. The impugned order discloses that the President withheld on permanent basis the payment of gratuity in addition to pension. The right to gratuity is also a statutory right. The appellant was not charged with nor was given an opportunity that his gratuity would be withheld as a measure of punishment. No provision of law has been brought to our notice under which the President is empowered to withhold gratuity as well after his retirement as a measure of punishment. Therefore, the order to withhold the gratuity as a measure of penalty is obviously illegal and is devoid of jurisdiction." 32. From the decisions of the Supreme Court of India as also of this Court, as referred to hereinbefore, it is evident that an order of withholding the amount of pension has been passed without taking recourse to the provisions of Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. 33. From the decisions of the Supreme Court of India as also of this Court, as referred to hereinbefore, it is evident that an order of withholding the amount of pension has been passed without taking recourse to the provisions of Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. 33. This Court directing the contemners opposite parties to finalise the case of the petitioner so that the authority slip for the payment of arrears of pension as well as the pension which he is entitled to receive be issued meant that such authority slip should be issued in accordance with law. 34. As in law, the contemners-opposite parties were not entitled to withhold the amount of pension or direct adjustment of any amount there from this Court following the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramani's case (supra) is entitled to direct payment of full pension to the petitioner without deducting the said amount of Rs. 89522.06 ps. 35. It is, therefore, directed that the contemners-opposite parties shall forthwith issue another Pension Payment Order in favour of the petitioner without adjusting the aforementioned sum of Rs. 89522.06 ps. It is, however. made clear that it would be open to the authority concerned of the State of Bihar to initiate such proceedings as against the petitioner as it may be advised for the purpose of recovery of the aforementioned amount or initiate any other proceeding which is permissible in law. 36. This application is disposed of with the aforementioned direction. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner is also entitled to cost of this proceeding. R. N. Sahay, J.-I agree.