Judgment 1. This is not one of those cases in which the Court ought to be interferring at all either on the writ petition or for that matter in the appeal of the State of Bihar. 2. The High Court has to be very careful before granting reliefs in its prerogative writ jurisdictions, which are extraordinary remedies provided under the Constitution. There must not be any material suppression of facts or circumstances of attempts to obtain any order from the High Court by keeping away essential information. 3. In the present case the petitioner filed a writ petition on an allegation that the post retirement benefits were being delayed or denied. On record of the writ petition it is correct that a counter affidavit had not been filed. But, there were some facts, which were within the special knowledge to the petitioner. The petitioners pension was delayed in being processed because there was a departmental enquiry against him to explain certain matters of audit during the course of his employment. Thus, it is not that there was no valid reason why the petitioners pension had been delayed. 4. When an order was passed on the writ petition that the petitioner be granted his pension alongwith 12% interest and Rs. 1000/- as costs, perhaps, it was not brought to the notice of the Court that departmental proceedings were already in motion against the petitioner. In these circumstances, the department concerned, of the State of Bihar sought a review of the order on the petition. The review was denied and, thus, the letters patent appeal. 5. In the present letters patent appeal, the department has annexed a letter in the petitioners handwriting clearly stating awareness about a departmental proceeding. Thus, it is not that the petitioner was without any information as to why his pension was being delayed. At the Bar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-respondent mentioned that he would need to verify whether the letter, which has been placed by the department, dated 7 March 1997, annexure 5 to the interlocutory application, is in the handwriting of the petitioner-respondent or not. This may not be necessary because it is the copy of the same letter which had been appended by the petitioner as Annexure II the writ petition. 6. This may not be necessary because it is the copy of the same letter which had been appended by the petitioner as Annexure II the writ petition. 6. The petitioner forgets that he is in the equity jurisdiction of the High Court and an order in nature of a writ like mandamus directing that pension be granted could only happen provided there was no impediment of any issue like a departmental proceeding to account for moneys. In the petitioners case those circumstances did exist. 7. In the circumstances, the direction, to the effect, that the petitioner may receive full pension cannot hold. However, learned counsel appearing for the State of Bihar states that notwithstanding the departmental enquiry the petitioner has already been paid provisional pension for the period March 1997 to November 1997 and the entire payment against group insurance. It is not that the petitioner has been denied post retirement benefits. It is understood that the entire pension will be available to the petitioner depending upon the result of the departmental enquiry. 8. In these circumstances, as all essential facts had not been noticed as they were not brought to the notice of the Court, the order on the writ petition will need to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed.