Judgment 1. In this writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that though he was compelled to retire on 31.8.1997 instead of 31.8.1999, his amount of leave encashment and commutation of pension have not been released till date. In the supplementary affidavit he has raised a grievance that his gratuity of Rs. 45,584/-has also not been paid uptill now. 2. Despite two indulgences granted to the Board to bring the payment of the admissible dues, the same has not been complied. 3. The Respondent Board has filed a counter affidavit in which it is not disputed that the amount of leave encashment and commutation of pension have not been paid. As regards gratuity, learned counsel for the Board submitted that since the copy of the supplementary affidavit was served on 2.5.2000, he has not been able to get instruction on that. 4. This Court finds it difficult to accept the said submission of the learned counsel for the Board. The Board filed its counter affidavit only after service of the copy of the supplementary affidavit in which the claim regarding gratuity has been raised. As such, the said fact remains undenied. 5. From the counter affidavit it appears that the petitioner has been kept denied of the said payments on account of unauthorised retention of quarter by him, for which the Board besides initiating disciplinary proceeding against him proceeded to charge/realise the penal rent also. 6. Learned counsel for the Board has referred to paragraphs 6 and 8 of the counter affidavit. In paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit it is stated that the pension of the petitioner is being paid and has already been paid upto March, 2000. The amount of Group Insurance has been paid to him on 12.11.1997 and final withdrawal of G.P.F. has been allowed on 6.9.1997. In paragraph 8 it is stated that the order for payment of gratuity was passed, vide letter no.1213 dated 30.8.1997 (Annexure E) and after noticing certain deductions in respect of building construction advance that was also rectified on 2.9.1997, vide Annexure F. 7. It appears that earlier there was some dispute regarding the age of superannuation of the petitioner for which the petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No.7959 of 1998, which was dismissed on 8.10.1998, Thereafter he filed L.P.A. No. 1217 of 1998, which was finally dismissed on 10.12.1999, vide order contained in Annexure A to the counter affidavit. It appears that earlier there was some dispute regarding the age of superannuation of the petitioner for which the petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No.7959 of 1998, which was dismissed on 8.10.1998, Thereafter he filed L.P.A. No. 1217 of 1998, which was finally dismissed on 10.12.1999, vide order contained in Annexure A to the counter affidavit. However, meanwhile, the respondent Board made the payment of other post retiral dues except the amount of leave encashment, commutation of pension and the said amount of gratuity. 8. Earlier the petitioner had filed C.W.J.C. No.10752 of 1999 in this Court praying for quashing of the order dated 29.9.1999, by which he was asked to vacate the quarter immediately and also sought for a direction to the respondent not to take any coercive steps for disconnecting the electric connection and so on. The said writ petition was dismissed, vide order dated 5.4.2000, contained in Annexure 3 to the supplementary affidavit. From the said order it appears that petitioner refused to vacate the quarter on the ground that his retirement benefit has not been paid. This Court made it clear that assuming that the retirement benefit was not paid, even then the petitioner cannot refuse to vacate the quarter, which is an official accommodation. Accordingly, this Court directed the petitioner to vacate the quarter by 12th April, 2000 and, on his failure to do so, the respondent Board was given liberty to get the quarter vacated with the help of police force. It is pertinent to mention here that in the said order the learned Judge also noticed the submission of the learned counsel for the Board that the entire retirement benefits have been paid to him except the commutation of pension which shall be paid to the petitioner after he vacates the quarter in question. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner positively vacated the quarter on 12th April, 2000. Admittedly, the petitioner has been charged penaf rent of Rs. 42,387/- for his stay beyond the date of retirement as per the Board, which has been recovered from the pension of the petitioner. From paragraph 10 of the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner it appears that standard rent of the said quarter was Rs. 152.60, but the respondents have deducted the penal rent of Rs. 2154.60 from his pension. 9. Mr. From paragraph 10 of the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner it appears that standard rent of the said quarter was Rs. 152.60, but the respondents have deducted the penal rent of Rs. 2154.60 from his pension. 9. Mr. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the Board has submitted that in view of the provisions contained in rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules read with the Standing Order dated 7.8.1985 of the Board a photo copy whereof has been made part of Annexure B and the Government instruction relating to withholding of pensionary benefits during the pendency of the disciplinary/judicial proceeding, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief from this Court when the departmental proceeding is pending against him and he has already filed show cause. 10. This Court is unable to appreciate the said submission of the learned counsel for the Board. There may be some substance in the submission of Mr. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the Board that as per the Government instruction, pensionary benefits except 90% of pension and gratuity can be kept withheld till the disposal of the departmental/judicial proceeding, but in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the said Government instruction is of no avail to the respondents to deprive the petitioner of the aforementioned dues. 11. The aforementioned Standing Order dated 7.5.1985 of the Board deals with the question as to what action should be taken in case the official quarter of the Board is not vacated by officer and staff of the Board or by any unauthorised occupants. The said Standing Order provides for realisation of standard rent, market rent and penal rent for certain specified period and beyond that an officer and staff in occupation of Boards quarter shall be deemed to be under suspension and suitable disciplinary action can be taken against him. With respect to the cases of retired and deceased employees, the provision is contained in clause (f), which reads as follows: "(f) In the cases of retired and deceased employees, the rent will be recovered from the amount of their gratuity. If the amount of rent is more than the amount of gratuity, then in that case the remaining amount will be recovered from their pension. In case the ward of a retired/deceased employee is employed in the Board, the remaining amount may be realised from his salary also." 12. If the amount of rent is more than the amount of gratuity, then in that case the remaining amount will be recovered from their pension. In case the ward of a retired/deceased employee is employed in the Board, the remaining amount may be realised from his salary also." 12. Learned counsel for the Board has tried to impress upon this Court that clause (e), which contemplates for placing an officer and staff in occupation of Boards quarter beyond the period under suspension and for suitable disciplinary action against him, also covers the cases of retired and deceased employee. 13. This Court is unable to accept the said submission of the learned counsel for the Board. In the cases of retired and deceased employees, the Board under clause (f) has laid down the complete procedure for taking action against such unauthorised occupants of the quarter obviously because in some such cases it may not be possible to take any disciplinary action. 14. This Court is quite conscious of the situation where a retired person or the dependent of the deceased employee may manage to continue in unauthorised occupation of the quarter much beyond the stipulated period as mentioned in the said Standing Order, but for that the Board is quite competent to take action for vacation of the quarter in accordance with law under the Bihar Government Premises (Rent, Recovery and Eviction) Act, 1956 or general law. 15. However, in the instant case, this Court does not find any justification to keep the petitioner deprived of the aforementioned amount of commutation of pension, leave encashment and gratuity even after vacation of the quarter by him pursuant to the order of this Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 10752 of 1999 and charging/realising of above mentioned penal rent from him on the plea that disciplinary proceeding is pending against him. After the vacation of the quarter and charging/realising of penal rent from the petitioner, this. Court finds that the action of the Board in keeping him deprived of the said dues by unnecessarily continuing the disciplinary proceeding is vindictive and mala fide specially in view of the aforementioned stand of the Board in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner. 16. Accordingly, ths writ petition is allowed with a cost of Rs. 2,000/- (two thousand). 16. Accordingly, ths writ petition is allowed with a cost of Rs. 2,000/- (two thousand). The respondents are directed to pay the cost and release the said pensionary dues within a week from today, failing which the Chairman and the Secretary of the Board shall not draw their salary and other allowances till the order is fully complied.