JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner came before this Court being aggrieved by the letters dated 23rd June,2008 and 19th August,2008 issued by the Director, Personnel, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, whereby his pension was stopped, although no proceedings were initiated under Rule 139 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules or under Rule 43-B . The petitioner has sought a further direction upon the respondents to grant him full pension as only 90% of provisional pension has been sanctioned, which was also stopped with effect from September, 2008. 3. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as an Assistant Store Keeper in the Bihar State Electricity Board and worked to the satisfaction of his superior. During his service period no departmental proceeding was initiated against him or is pending. After his retirement on 31st January,2007 GPF amount, leave encasement and group insurance amount have already been paid to him and 90% provisional pension has also been sanctioned and paid to the petitioner but the same has been stopped with effect from September,2008. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Electrical Executive Engineer, Kokar, by letter dated 7th February,2007, has directed him to hand over charge to one Sri S.Munda, Assistant Store Keeper. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has categorically replied the letter dated 7.2.2007, vide Annexure 2 that he was never handed over charge of store nor he was responsible for the material of the store, which was being looked by Sachidanand Singh, Assistant Store Keeper and one Paramhans Sharma, who was incharge of the store and was in possession of the store. Counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Dudhnath Pandey Vs. State of Jharkhand & ors., reported in 2007(4) JCR 1 to support of the contention that in absence of a departmental or any criminal prosecution, the respondents could not withheld the pension/gratuity amount after his retirement. 5. The respondents have appeared and filed their counter affidavit, in which it is stated that the petitioner did not hand over the charge of the store and as such, 10 per cent of his pension was withheld after several reminders. However, it has further been stated that an FIR was lodged against Sachidanand Singh for tampering the evidence but he has been acquitted by the learned court. However, it has further been stated that an FIR was lodged against Sachidanand Singh for tampering the evidence but he has been acquitted by the learned court. It is stated that said Sachidanand Singh and Paramhans Sharma have handed over the charge respectively but the petitioner has not handed over the charge. 6. The petitioner has also field a rejoinder to the same. 7. Be that as it may, it appears that the respondents are required to take appropriate decision in respect of the claim of the petitioner in terms of the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Dudhnath Pandey (Supra). 8. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to approach the Director,Jharkhand State Electricity Board with a representation within a period of three weeks for seeking full pension and gratuity. The said representation should contain all facts and supporting documents. The petitioner shall also produce a copy of the judgment in the case of Dr. Dudhnath Pandey (supra). In case such a representation is made before the respondent no.2, he shall consider the same in accordance with law and pass a reasoned and speaking order taking into account the ratio laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Dudhnth Pandey (supra) within 12 weeks thereafter and if the claim of the petitioner is found genuine and legally admissible and there is no departmental proceeding or criminal case pending against him, the petitioner's claim for pension and gratuity should be paid to him within 8 weeks thereafter. 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.