ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent Bihar State Electricity Board. 2. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 1.12.2010 passed by the Director (Terminal Benefit) by which the Gratuity Payment Order dated 15.6.2010 has been directed to be kept in abeyance until further administrative orders are received in view of the departmental proceedings having been initiated against the petitioner. 3. The petitioner retired from the services of the Board as an Electrical Executive Engineer on 31.1.2010. After his retirement he has received most of his post retiral dues except gratuity, which has been directed to be kept in abeyance by the aforesaid order as also his leave encashment amount. While the petitioner was in the service of the Board, by Resolution dated 10.11.2003 departmental proceeding was initiated against him and the same is still pending. 4. It is the stand of the respondent Board that on account of the pendency of the departmental proceedings the amount of gratuity and leave encashment have been withheld. 5. With respect to withholding of leave encashment, learned counsel for the Board relies upon a Standing Order No. 850 dated 17.12.2004 issued by the Board in which it has been provided that in case of pending departmental/criminal proceedings against any employee/officer of the Board, payment of leave encashment and commutation of pension shall be withheld otherwise not. 6. With respect to withholding of gratuity, the stand of the respondent Board is that by Resolution No. 393 dated 8.12.1987 while introducing the Pension-cum-G.P.F. Scheme to all its employees who were till then on non-pensionable scheme under C.P.F. Rules of the Board, it was decided that the services rendered by employee till then on the non-pensionable post shall be counted for the purpose of pension and other pensionary benefit according to the provisions of the Bihar Pension Rules as adopted by the Board from time to time. It is thus submitted by learned counsel for the Board that in view of the Government of Bihar Finance Department Notification dated 28.12.1974 which provides that during the pendency of departmental/criminal proceeding the gratuity of an employee would be withheld in full, by adopting the Bihar Pension Rules by the Board in 1987, it is competent to pass order withholding gratuity amount during the pendency of the departmental/criminal proceedings. 7. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, submits that while the Board has issued a specific executive order for withholding of leave encashment no such order of the Board has been brought on the record. It is submitted that reliance on a notification in the nature of executive instruction of the State Government can be of no avail to the respondent Board unless the particular notification or notifications in general pertaining to pension and gratuity have been adopted by the Board, which has not been done by the respondent Board. It is submitted that this Court by its order dated 3.7.2012 passed in CWJC No.2831 of 2012 (Nagendra Pathak vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) has on the basis of decisions of three Division Benches clearly held that it is open to the State Government, during the pendency of departmental or criminal proceedings, to withhold the full amount of gratuity and leave encashment and part of pension in terms of the executive instructions issued by the State Government from time to time which are not opposed to the statutory rules under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules rather they fill up the gaps and are supplementary in nature and therefore fully effective and valid. The relevant part of the decision of this Court in Nagendra Pathak’s case (supra) is quoted below : “On a consideration of the aforesaid decisions of the Division Bench in the cases of Ram Bahadur Sinha (supra), Ganga Bishun Mahto (supra) and Kunj Bihari Thakur (supra) it is evident that the issue raised herein by the petitioner has been settled by three Division Benches of this Court which have held that it is open to the State Government, during the pendency of departmental or criminal proceedings, to withhold the full amount of gratuity and leave encashment and part of pension in terms of the executive instructions issued by the State Government from time to time which are not opposed to the statutory rules under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules rather they fill up the gaps and are supplementary in nature and therefore fully effective and valid.” 8. It is submitted that in view of the clear proposition of law laid down by Division Benches of this Court as considered in Nagendra Pathak’s case (supra), it is evident that withholding of any gratuity by the Board which has adopted only the Bihar Pension Rules and not the other notifications would be contrary to law and not open to the authorities of the respondent Board. 9. On a consideration of the aforesaid submissions of learned counsels for the parties, I find sufficient force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the Board was given ample opportunity and time by this Court to produce any notification of the Board for withholding gratuity during the pendency of departmental or criminal proceedings or even adoption of the concerned notification of the State Government in that regard. No such resolution or order of the Board either for withholding of gratuity or adopting the notification of the State Government in that regard could be produced in Court. It is thus evident that no such power has been conferred upon the authorities of the Board to withhold any gratuity during the pendency of departmental proceedings. 10. The impugned order dated 1.12.2010 is, therefore, quashed and the respondents are directed to pay the gratuity to the petitioner in terms of the Memo dated 15.6.2010 (Annexure-3) within a period of two months from today. 11. The writ application is, accordingly, allowed. 12. At this stage, learned counsel for the Board also submits that by the Standing Order of the Board power has been conferred to withhold 10% pension until the conclusion of the departmental proceedings. Neither any such order has been produced nor any such issue has been raised in the present matter. It would be open to the authorities of the respondent Board to act in accordance with law in any such matter. It is further directed that considering the fact that the departmental proceeding has been continuing since last nine years the same should be concluded expeditiously within a period of four months from today.