JUDGMENT SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition and prayed for appropriate orders and directions to direct the Respondents to pay all the legal admissible dues on account of retirement from service on 31.1.1995, when he retired as Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, a gazetted post under the Government of Bihar. 3. From the facts stated in the writ petition and also the counter affidavit it appears that the petitioner was initially appointed as an Inspector, Co-operative Society on 19.11.1960 and in that post he got junior selection grade and senior selection grade of pay. On 15.7.1993 he was promoted as Assistant Registrar and retired as such on 31.1.95. The petitioner has admittedly been paid dues on account of G.P.F. and Group Insurance and was also granted ninety per cent of pension as provisional pension. 4. According to the petitioner, the retirement dues of the petitioner have wrongly been withheld when in fact there has been no departmental proceeding against him nor any proceeding for stoppage of pension etc. has been initiated till date. According to him, the respondents have also committed calculation mistakes in calculating the average pay for the last ten months prior to his retirement in document contained in annexure-1 and that mistake has been demonstrated by the petitioner through actual figures of pay received as shown in annexure-2. The said calculation is annexure-2 and error pointed out have not been disputed in the counter affidavit. The petitioner has further asserted that his service record was always good which will be apparent from the fact that he was given junior and senior selection grade when he was Inspector of the Co-operative Societies and was also given a promotion about eighteen months before his retirement on 15.7.1993. 5. From the writ petition as well as counter affidavit it transpires that the Joint Registrar (Vigilance), Co-operative Societies, Bihar, Patna through a letter dated 6.7.95 communicated certain charges to the petitioner. The said letter is annexure-3 and from the last part of the said letter it is clear that in case the petitioner failed to submit his explanation then on the available materials a departmental proceeding will be initiated against him. The said letter is annexure-3 and from the last part of the said letter it is clear that in case the petitioner failed to submit his explanation then on the available materials a departmental proceeding will be initiated against him. The same very letter is annexure-C to the counter affidavit and from contents thereof it is clear that no departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner even after his retirement till 6.7.1995. 6. In the counter affidavit it is mentioned that the section against the petitioner under Rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules may also be contemplated after adopting due procedure laid down in the Rule. This Court by orders dated 1.5.97 and 6.5.97 granted opportunities to the learned counsel for the Respondents to file supplementary counter affidavit annexing documents to show that the proceeding has already been initiated against the petitioner but no such affidavit was filed. Thus, it has to be concluded that there is no departmental proceeding or even a proceeding under Rule 139 of the Pension Rules pending against the petitioner. 7. Through the counter affidavit the Respondents have brought or record the fact that vide Award cases 1/94 and 2/94 decided by the District Cooperative Officer, Bhagalpur decrees have been passed for recovery of Rs. 1,07,403,08 paise and Rs. 69, 208.00 Paise against the petitioner and the same will be recoverable as a public demand under the provisions of section 52 of the Bihar Cooperative Societies Act. 1935. On this aspect of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the decision in the award cases was taken on 9.1.97 without any jurisdiction because much prior to that by an order dated 3.7.96 passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bihar, Patna contained in annexure-7, the aforesaid Award cases had been transferred from the court of District Cooperative Officer, Bhagalpur to the Court of Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies Bhagalpur Annexures-8 and 9 have been brought on record through supplementary rejoinder to the counter affidavit to further show that the said Awards have been stayed in course of orders passed in appeal preferred against those awards. It has been further submitted that the amounts involved in the said Awards even if ultimately found recoverable, will be payable to a registered Co-operative Society and not to the Government of Bihar and hence there is no justification or reasonable basis for withholding retiral dues of the petitioner on account of the said Awards. It has further been submitted that admittedly the mode of realization for such dues is provided by section 82 of Bihar Cooperative Societies Act and a recourse to indirectly attach the pensionary benefits of the petitioner on account of the said Award is against the provisions of section 11 of the Pension Act. In support of this proposition reliance has been placed on behalf of the petitioner upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and another vs. Wing Commander R.R. Hingorani reported in AIR 1987 SC 808 . 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Respondents I find force in the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no material or legally justifiable ground to withhold the pensionary benefits of the petitioner because admittedly there is no departmental proceeding or any proceeding for that matter shown to be pending against the petitioner when he has retired more than four years ago. Non-payment of pensionary benefits on account of the aforesaid Awards which have also been stayed on account of apparent illegality in exercise of jurisdiction in passing the Awards cannot be a basis for withholding the retirement dues and more so in view of section 11 of the Pension Act and the judgment of the Apex court as noticed above. 9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The Respondents are directed to correct the mistake in calculating the ten months' average pay of the petitioner as demonstrated by annexure-2 and thereafter to pay all legal admissible dues on account of gratuity, leave encashment for unutilised leave for 240 days and full pension as well as dues on account of such pension after proper calculation as mentioned above. If any other dues on account of pensionary benefit are found due, the same will be also calculated and paid to the petitioner along with the aforesaid dues within a period of four months from the date of communication/receipt of a copy of this order. If any other dues on account of pensionary benefit are found due, the same will be also calculated and paid to the petitioner along with the aforesaid dues within a period of four months from the date of communication/receipt of a copy of this order. However in the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for awarding interest in favour of the petitioner or costs.