Judgment Radha Mohan Prasad, J. 1. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for fixation and payment of his full pension with effect from 1st November, 1991, full gratuity as well as fixation and payment of his salary in the scale of rs.3700-5000 which, according to him is the prescribed scale for the post of director, Printing and Stationary with effect from 14th January, 1983 besides interest thereon. 2. The petitioner was in the service of the State Government and retired while serving as Director, Printing and stationary in the Finance Department. After retirement the petitioner has been paid 90 per cent of the Provisional penion in the scale prescribed for the post of Superintendent, but other dues like gratuity and final pension have not been paid even in the scale of Superintenlent, which he was holding in substanive capacity. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State Government in the Finance Department and its of-officers respondent Nos.1,2 and 3 and a counter affidavit on behalf of the Accountant General (respondent No.4)has also been filed. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State it is stated that the petitioner was originally holding the post of Superintendent, secretariat Press, Gulzarbagh, Patna. He was assigned the duties of Director, printing and Stationary in addition to his own duty vide Finance Department memo No.164/f (2) dated 14-1-1983. According to the respondents it was not an order of promotion, but just an ad hoc arrangement, for which the petitioner had been paid at the rate of 20 per cent additional pay of the basic pay as per the Finance Department memo No.1082/f (2) dated 22-2-1988. Thus, according to the respondents, the question of promotion, fixation and payment of salary/full pension in the scale of Rs.3700-5000 prescribed for the post of Director does not arise. As regards other reliefs for payment of post retiral dues it is stated that an enquiry is pending in the Vigilance Department related with a forgery case against the petitioner. Therefore, the same has been held up. 4. Mr. Banerjee, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the payment of the post-retiral dues of a government servant cannot be kept withheld merely because of pendency of vigilance enquiry. In this regard he placed reliance on the decision of the supreme Court in the case of State of bihar and others V/s. Mohd. 4. Mr. Banerjee, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the payment of the post-retiral dues of a government servant cannot be kept withheld merely because of pendency of vigilance enquiry. In this regard he placed reliance on the decision of the supreme Court in the case of State of bihar and others V/s. Mohd. Idris Ansari reported in 1995 (2) P. L. J. R.51 SC) as well as of this Court in the case of Bali ram Thakur V/s. Bihar State Electricity reported in 1995 (2) P. L. J. R.607 and in the case of Ram Lakhan Singh V/s. State of bihar and others, reported in 1996 (1)PUR 516. 5. Mr. Agrawal, Learned S. C II appearing for the respondents- State sub-mitted that under the rules and circulars of the State Government a government servant is not entitled to get full pensionary benefit as a matter of right unless his service is found to be satisfactory. He further submitted that it is not merely an enquiry pending in the vigilance Department, in fact, a criminal case was instituted before the petitioner attained the age of superannuation, which is still pending. As such, even under the Government Circulars the petitioner is entitled for payment of provisional pension and not full pensionary benefit. 6. The State Government, vide finance Department memo No.3/f-50/70-12753 FD dated 26-11-70 relating to continuation of a departmental or judicial proceeding initiated against the petitioner with respect to his misconduct or his negligence even after retirement, on careful consideration, decided to allow the Government servant under suspension to retire on reaching the age of superannuation irrespective of the question whether the enquiry into charges or departmental or judicial Proceeding initiated have been concluded or not. It was further decided that the said revised procedure should take effect from 1st November, 1970. Further, the enquiry/proceeding that might have already started or likely to be taken against the Government servant in future was to be continued even after their retirement from Government service in accordance with the procedure, laid down in Rule 43 (4) of the Bihar Pension rules. Further, the enquiry/proceeding that might have already started or likely to be taken against the Government servant in future was to be continued even after their retirement from Government service in accordance with the procedure, laid down in Rule 43 (4) of the Bihar Pension rules. Considering this Circular and rule 43 (b) it was held by me in the case of Ram Ekbal Sharma V/s. State of Bihar and others disposed of on 17- 10-1996 that merely because a Government servant is allowed to retire, the Government does not lack jurisdiction or power to continue a proceeding already initiated to logical conclusion thereto. In the said case I have also taken into consideration the law laid down by the apex Court in various decisions including the one reported in 1995 (2) PUR R 1 (S. C. ). As such, I do not find any substance in the submission of the Learned counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of the judicial proceeding the government servant cannot be denied full pensionary benefit. 7. I do not find any substance in the other submission of the Learned counsel for the petitioner as well with respect to payment of the salary of the petitioner in the scale prescribed for the post of Director, Printing and Stationary with effect from 14-1-1983 and fixation and payment of his post-retiral dues. In my opinion, this relief cannot be granted to the petitioner firstly on the ground of delay and laches and secondly, even on merit as the petitioner has already accepted 20 per cent as additional pay for discharging the function of the Director in terms of the rules of the State Government. In the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ-application and the same is dismissed, but without costs. Petition Dismissed.