ORDER Tapen Sen, J. 1. The petitioner in this case retired on 31.8.2002. He prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to fix and pay his pension together with the arrears and interest. He also prays for a direction upon the respondents directing them to release Gratuity with interest; leave encashment amount for 240 days with interest and due salary from 06.07.2000 (date of suspension) till 31.08.2002 (date of superannuation). 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submitted that the petitioner is getting 90% of pension (excluding the period 6.7.2000 to 31.8.2002), which makes a difference of about Rs. 400/-. He further states that the petitioner has got provident fund and the subsistence allowance, but the period between 6.7.2000 to 31.8.2002 has not been regularized thereby preventing the accounting of this period towards pension. He is also not getting salary for the period 6.7.2000 to 31.8.2002. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Block Animal Husbandry Officer in the year 1974, whereafter he served in various places but in the month of January and February 1996 several cases were instituted against the officers of the Animal Husbandry Department, which came to be commonly referred to as the Animal Husbandry Scam. The petitioner has stated that he was not an accused in any of the cases, but later, he was examined by the Central Bureau of Investigation and then he came to know that he had been implicated in one of the cases. Thereafter he surrendered in August, 2000 and was granted bail on 19.3.2001, After creation of the State of Jharkhand, he was allotted the Jharkhand Cadre and was put under suspension on 6.7.2000 vide order as contained in Annexure 1. 4. The petitioner continued to be under suspension till the date of his retirement and during this period he was paid subsistence allowance. The counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 4 (Accountant General) goes to show that they have issued authority slip for 90% provisional pension, as the Department, vide their letter dated 12.2.2003 had sanctioned the said provisional pension. They have also stated that no Government Order for payment of full pay and allowances for the period of suspension has been received and that leave salary for unutilized earned leave for 240 days could not be authorized for want of sanction order. 5. The counter-affidavit of the respondent Nos. They have also stated that no Government Order for payment of full pay and allowances for the period of suspension has been received and that leave salary for unutilized earned leave for 240 days could not be authorized for want of sanction order. 5. The counter-affidavit of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (The State of Jharkhand and the Director, Department of Animal Husbandry) has stated that the petitioner retired on 31.8.2002 while he was on the post of Veterinary Surgeon at the Veterinary Hospital at Chutia in Ranchi. They have further stated that pension papers were forwarded on 28.11.2002, and that the petitioner is involved in Fodder Scam vide Case No. RC 53 (A)/96- Pat. registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation. Prosecution has been sanctioned against the petitioner and due to his involvement, only 90% provisional pension has been sanctioned. It has also been stated that since the petitioner has been chargesheeted in the aforementioned case, 10% of the pension, full gratuity and leave encashment has been withheld. 6. In reply to the aforementioned counter-affidavit, the petitioner has stated in his rejoinder that the respondents have paid subsistence allowance for the period 6.7.2000 to 26.3.2002 at the rate of 50% of the salary and for the remaining period till retirement at the rate of 75% of the salary. He has further stated that the respondents have wrongly and illegally calculated the pension/provisional pension by excluding the period from 6.7.2000 to 31.8.2002 and therefore, the petitioner is suffering by getting a lesser amount by about Rs. 400/per month. 7. Another affidavit has been filed by the respondent No. 4 wherein it has been stated that the Government of Jharkhand has issued a Notification No. 1961 dated 22.7.2003 to the effect that pension and gratuity of the petitioner will be finalized after disposal of the criminal case and that till then, payments of gratuity and unutilized leave encashment are to be withheld. In support thereof, the respondent has brought on record the Notification dated 22.7.2003 as Annexure R 4/A. 8. It is not necessary to go into the rejoinder of the petitioner to this affidavit. From the pleadings of the respondents it is evident that the petitioner is involved in the Fodder Scam and unless the State Government regularizes the period of his suspension, the Government cannot be directed to release all the amounts. It is not necessary to go into the rejoinder of the petitioner to this affidavit. From the pleadings of the respondents it is evident that the petitioner is involved in the Fodder Scam and unless the State Government regularizes the period of his suspension, the Government cannot be directed to release all the amounts. After all, the petitioner is facing criminal prosecution and the Governments interests will also have to be protected. Consequently, this Court is unable to find any error in the action of the State Government in not releasing the entire pensionary benefits to the petitioner mentioned in paragraph 1. Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules clearly lays down as follows :- "43(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 caused to Government if the pensioner is found in departmental or judicial proceedings to have been guilty of grave misconduct or to have caused pecuniary loss to Govt. by misconduct or negligence, during his service including service rendered on re-employment after retirement........................." However, so far as the gratuity is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that the respondents should release at least 90% of the same in view of the fact that under Rule 27 of the Pension Rules, the term "pension" has been defined to include "gratuity". Thus, if the respondents have released 90% of the pension, there is no reason why they should not also do the same in relation to a component which is now included within the term "pension" as per the said Rule. This apart, the interests of the Government are sufficiently protected by Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, through which they can make good the loss suffered by them. Consequently, the respondents should release at least 90% of the gratuity. However, so far as the other amounts are concerned, their payments will depend on the finalization of the criminal case. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this Writ Petition is disposed off. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.