ORDER Heard counsel for the parties. 2. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:– “(i) For commanding the respondents (a) To pay full pension. (b) To pay gratuity. (c) To pay leave encashment. (d) To pay General Provident Fund. (ii) For a further direction to the respondents to pay interest on post retiral benefits mentioned above from the date of superannuation of the petitioner dated 31.3.2008 till final payment.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that while the petitioner was in active service he was made accused in the fodder scam case lodged by the C.B.I. in R.C.Case No. 48/1996 wherein a charge sheet was submitted against him on 21.11.2003 and the Special Judge, C.B.I., Animal Husbandry, has taken cognizance in the criminal case which is still pending against him. He has also submitted that the petitioner was placed under suspension on 31.5.2002 on account of his being made accused in the aforementioned R.C.Case No. 48A/1996 but then the petitioner had completed his age of superannuation on 31.3.2008 while continuing in suspension. Learned counsel has explained that after retirement even when the petitioner had filed his pension papers for payment of pension and other terminal dues the same has not been paid to him as yet. 4. It has to be noted that in this case a counter affidavit has been filed wherein it has been explained that by an order dated 17.9.2008 the petitioner was sanctioned 90% of his provisional pension on account of pendency of the criminal case against him. It has further been explained that the petitioner’s leave encashment for admissible 240 days to the tune of Rs.1,35,256/- has also been paid to him on 3.2.2009. The counter affidavit also takes note of the fact that in a writ application filed by the petitioner, C.W.J.C. No. 5835/2009 an order has been passed that after retirement of the petitioner he is entitled to get 90% by way of provisional pension without gratuity and other retirement benefit and thus, in view of the aforementioned inter-party order the petitioner is not entitled for payment of balance 10% pension and/or the entire amount of gratuity. The respondent Provident Fund Officer having filed a separate counter affidavit has also explained that the amount of Rs. 12,78,711/- on the head of G.P.F. has already been paid to the petitioner on 15.1.2009. 5. The respondent Provident Fund Officer having filed a separate counter affidavit has also explained that the amount of Rs. 12,78,711/- on the head of G.P.F. has already been paid to the petitioner on 15.1.2009. 5. In view of above, it becomes clear that the grievance of the petitioner as with regard to payment of leave encashment and F.P.F. has been redressed and now the only question remains with regard to payment of full pension and gratuity. As noted above, the petitioner is already getting 90% provisional pension but the grievance of the petitioner is that he should be given full 100% pension and gratuity as Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Bihar Pension Rules does not prohibit payment of full pension and gratuity to a retired Government servant against whom the criminal proceeding by way of trial is pending. In this regard he has placed reliance on an unreported judgment of the Full Bench of Jharkhand High Court dated 8.8.2007 in L.P.A.No. 714/2004 in the case of Dr. Dudh Nath Pandey Vs. the State of Jharkhand & ors. as also an order of the learned Single Judge of Jharkhand High Court dated 12.1.2009 in W.P.(S) No. 6377/2005 (Kameshwar Prasad Yadav Vs. Sate of Jharkhand & ors.). 7. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has submitted that the issue as with regard to petitioner’s entitlement of provisional pension having been already decided in the order of this Court dated 11.5.2009 in C.W.J.C.No. 5835/2009 the petitioner cannot claim the amount of balance 10% of pension and gratuity till conclusion of the criminal case. He has also submitted that the view taken by Jharkhand High Court would not form a binding precedent for this Court, inasmuch as the issue in question has been directly answered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Bahadur Singh Vs. the State of Bihar & ors., reported in 1994(2) PLJR 724 . He has also submitted that the view taken by Jharkhand High Court would not form a binding precedent for this Court, inasmuch as the issue in question has been directly answered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Bahadur Singh Vs. the State of Bihar & ors., reported in 1994(2) PLJR 724 . According to the learned counsel for the State the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Ram Bahadur Singh (supra) was a binding precedent for Jharkhand High Court but the same has not even been considered by the Full Bench of Jharkhand High Court which came into existence only on 15.11.2000 in view of Bihar Re-organization Act 2000 and on whom the Division Bench judgment rendered by this Court prior to 15.11.2000 will itself form a binding precedent. He has also submitted that the Full Bench of Jharkhand High Court in the case of Dr. Dudh Nath Pandey (supra) had relied on such judgments of this Court which has been either directly or impliedly overruled and therefore, the judgment of the Full Bench of Jharkhand High Court will not form a binding precedent for this Court. 8. In the considered opinion of this Court the claim of full pension including gratuity of the petitioner till conclusion of the criminal case and his clean acquittal in the criminal case is untenable both on fact and in law. The petitioner was admittedly placed under suspension on the ground of criminal case on 31.5.2002. The State Government having considered the allegation in the criminal case, R.C.Case No. 48A/1996 lodged by the C.B.I. in relation to fodder scam case had earlier granted sanction of prosecution against the petitioner on 22.8.2001. Thus, such suspension of the petitioner on 31.5.2002 was in keeping with the provision of Rule 49(a) of the Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules which was in force prior to enforcement of Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005. On the strength of such order of suspension the petitioner continued under suspension till 31.3.2008 when he had attained the age of superannuation. On the strength of such order of suspension the petitioner continued under suspension till 31.3.2008 when he had attained the age of superannuation. It has to be noted that the order of suspension of the petitioner dated 31.3.2008 was not revoked at any point of time and therefore, in terms of Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules the judicial proceeding against the petitioner as specifically defined in Rule 43(b) will be deemed to be continuing against him. Rule 43(b) of Bihar Pension Rules reads 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 of part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government if the pensioner is found in departmental or judicial proceeding to have been guilty or grave misconduct, or to have caused pecuniary loss to Government by misconduct or negligence during his service including service rendered on re-employment after retirement. Provided that:– (a) Such departmental proceedings if not instituted while the Government servant was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment:– (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the State Government. (ii) shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceedings; and (iii) shall be conducted by such authority and at such place or place, as the State Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to proceedings on which an order of dismissal from service may be made; (b) Judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment, shall have been instituted in accordance with such-clause (ii) of Clause (a); and (c) the Bihar Public Service Commission, shall be consulted before final orders are passed. Explanation.–For the purposes of the Rule(a) departmental proceeding shall be deemed to have been instituted when the charges framed, against the pensioner are issued to him or, if the Government servant has been placed under suspension from an earlier date on such date and (b) Judicial proceedings shall be deemed to have been instituted (i) in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which a complaint is made or a charge-sheet is submitted, to a criminal court and (ii) in the case of civil proceedings, on the date on which the complaint is presented or as the case may be, an application is made to a civil court." 9. From bare perusal of the above rule it is clear that the State Government is empowered to withhold or withdraw the whole or part of amount of the pension, permanently or for specified period if the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct in any departmental or judicial proceeding during the tenure of his service including the service rendered on re-employment. Likewise, the State Government is also competent to make recovery of the amount of pecuniary loss whole of part of it from pension if the pensioner is found to have caused pecuniary loss to the Government by misconduct or negligence during tenure of his service including service rendered on re-employment. According to counsel for the petitioner however any part of pension can be withheld or withdrawn or recovery made only after the petitioner has been found guilt of grave misconduct or having caused pecuniary loss to the Government by misconduct or negligence in a departmental or judicial proceeding. Counsel in this connection referred to the proviso and explanation appended to the rule and submitted that having regard to the fact that the Rule envisages certain restrictions and limitations upon the power of the State Government in the matter of initiation of either departmental or judicial proceeding, it cannot be said that the power of withholding or withdrawing pension or recovery thereof is unfettered and absolute. 10. It is here that the circular of the Finance Department dated 22.8.1974 would come also into play which categorically lays down that if a Government servant retires under suspension he will not be entitled for payment of full pension and gratuity and at best would be entitled for payment of provisional pension till conclusion of the departmental proceeding or judicial proceeding. The relevant portion of the aforementioned Government circular dated 22.8.1974 reads as follows:– “The question of sanctioning pension to Government servants who are under suspension or against whom departmental of judicial proceedings or enquiries have not been concluded on the date of compulsory retirement has been under active consideration of Government. 2. The State Government have been pleased to decide that (i) where any departmental or judicial proceeding is instituted under rule 43(b) of Bihar Pension Rules, a Government servant or where a departmental proceeding is continued against an officer who have retired on attaining the age of compulsory retirement, or otherwise, he shall be paid during the period commencing from the date of his retirement to the date on which upon conclusion of such proceedings, final orders are passed 75% provisional pension of the pension which would have been admissible on the basis of his qualifying service upto the date of retirement, or if he was under suspension on the date of retirement, up to the date immediately preceding the date on which he was placed under suspension, but no gratuity or death-cum-retirement gratuity shall be paid to him until the conclusion of such proceeding and the issue of final orders thereon. (ii) Payment of provisional pension may under the above provision shall be adjusted against the final retirement benefits sanctioned to such officer upon conclusion of the aforesaid proceedings but no recovery shall be made where the pension finally sanctioned is less than the provisional or the pension is reduced or withheld either permanently or for a specified period. 3. The grant of pension under the aforesaid provision shall not prejudice the operation of rule 139 of Bihar Pension Rules where final pension is sanctioned upon the conclusion of the proceedings. 4. These orders will be effective from the 1st November, 1970. All pending cases will be decided accordingly.” 11. 3. The grant of pension under the aforesaid provision shall not prejudice the operation of rule 139 of Bihar Pension Rules where final pension is sanctioned upon the conclusion of the proceedings. 4. These orders will be effective from the 1st November, 1970. All pending cases will be decided accordingly.” 11. It has to be also noted that the aforesaid government decision dated 22.8.1974 was further reconfirmed by a clarificatory circular dated 31.10.1974 and even under the Liberalized Pension Rules issued under Government Resolution No. 3014 dated 31.7.1980 in paragraph no.7(Ga) the State Government had reiterated the provision of aforementioned Government Resolution dated 22.8.1974 and 31.10.1974 as with regard to withholding the full amount of pension and gratuity and paying only provisional pension till conclusion of the judicial proceeding and/or departmental proceeding and had only enhanced the quantum of amount of provisional pension from 75% to 90%. The relevant portion of paragraph no.7(Ga) of the aforementioned Government Resolution No. 3014 dated 31.7.1980 is also quoted hereinbelow:– ^^(x) tgk¡ ljdkjh lsod dh lsok vofèk esa izkjEHk dh x;h foHkkxh; ;k U;kf;d dk;Zokfg;k¡ lsok fuo`fr dh frfFk rd vfUre :i ls fu"ikfnr gksus dh lEHkouk u gks ogk¡ for foHkkx ds ifji=kkad 9144@foñ] fnukad 22.8.1974 ,oa 11260 foñ] fnukad 31.10.1974 ds izkoèkkuksa ds vèkhu vkSicafèkd isa'ku LohÑfr djus dh dkjZokbZ dh tk; ftlls lsok fuo`r gksusokys ljdkjh lsod dks dfBukbZ u gksA uhps dafMdk 8 ds (x) esa fufgr izkoèkku bl dksfV ds ekeys esa ykxw ugha gksaxsA bl dksfV ds ekeys esa vkSicafèkd isa'ku dh jkf'k fu;er% vuqekU; isa'ku dh vfèkdre jkf'k ls de gksxh ij fdlh Hkh fLFkfr esa 90 izfr'kr ls de ugha gksxhA** 12. Thus, from a reading of the Government circular dated 22.8.1974 as well as 31.10.1974 and the Government Resolution dated 31.7.1980 it would be absolutely clear that a conscious Government decision has been taken for temporarily withholding of 10% of pension and full amount of gratuity till conclusion of the departmental proceeding and/or criminal case. In this regard a division bench of this Court in the case of Ram Bahadur Sinha (supra) has also held that:– "There can be no dispute that departmental or judicial proceeding for the purpose of exercise of power under Rule 43(b) can be initiated within the parameters of the restrictive provisions as contained in the Proviso and the Explanation to the Rule. There cannot be any dispute either that withholdment or withdrawal of the amount of pension or its recovery as measure of punishment can be made only after the person concerned has actually been found guilty of grave misconduct or to have caused pecuniary loss to the Government by misconduct or negligence during the tenure of his service. The question for consideration, however, is whether the State government is not competent to withhold whole or part of the amount of pension as an interim measure where the departmental of judicial proceeding has already been instituted or where a decision to institute the same has already been taken. The answer in my opinion has to be in the affirmative, withholding whole or part of the pension pending departmental or juridical proceeding would be just like placing a Government employee under suspension pending departmental proceeding or criminal case against him. It is well known that any such order of suspension as an interim measure in contradistinction to 'suspension' as a penalty under Rule 49 of the Civil Services (Classification Control & Appeal) Rules, 1930 or rule 2 of the Bihar and Orissa Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1935, is not penal in nature. Just as an order or suspension pending departmental proceeding or criminal case does not visit the person concerned with any evil consequences inasmuch as in the event of his being found not guilty of the charges he becomes entitled to all the service benefits including pay and allowances etc. for the intervening period, similarly, any order exonerating the person concerned of the charges in the departmental or judicial proceeding within the meaning of Rule 43(b) would entitle him to full pension. Therefore, withholding whole or part of pension as an interim measure during the pendency of the proceeding or in contemplation thereof cannot be said to be penal in the eye of law. The contention that pension cannot be withheld without recording a finding in respect of misconduct or negligence in a departmental or judicial proceeding, thus, cannot be accepted." 13. Therefore, withholding whole or part of pension as an interim measure during the pendency of the proceeding or in contemplation thereof cannot be said to be penal in the eye of law. The contention that pension cannot be withheld without recording a finding in respect of misconduct or negligence in a departmental or judicial proceeding, thus, cannot be accepted." 13. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of the judgment of the Full Bench of Jharkhand High Court in the case of Dudh Nath Dubey (supra) that such withholding of pension and gratuity is contrary to the spirit of Rule 43(a) of the Bihar Pension Rules has to be also noted for its being rejected. In fact this very aspect stands fully concluded by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Bihar & ors. Vs. Ganga Bishun Mahto & ors., reported in 2001(4) PLJR 435 , wherein having taken into consideration the circular of the Finance Department dated 22.8.1974 and 31.10.1974 it had held as follows:– “10. “It came to the notice of the State Government that delay is being caused in finalization of the pension claim of the government servant against whom a departmental of judicial proceedings have not been concluded on the date of superannuation. Accordingly, it issued instructions or circulars from time to time. The first instruction was issued vide Finance Department Memo No. PC-11-40-28/74/9144 F; dated 22.8.1974 which became effective from 1st November, 1970. It provided that where any departmental or a judicial proceeding is instituted under rule 43(b) of the Rules and the same is continuing after retirement of the employee concerned under the aforesaid provision, he shall be paid during pendency of the proceeding till final orders are passed 75% provisional pension which would have been admissible on the basis of his qualifying service up to the date of retirement. The State Government again vide F.D. Memo No. PC-11-98-40-98/74-11260 F, dated 31.10.1974 clarified the matter and stated that payment of 75% of provisional pension shall be adjusted against the final retirement benefits sanctioned to such officer on conclusion of the proceedings but no recovery shall be made when the pension finally sanctioned is less than thee provisional pension or pension is reduced or withheld permanently or for specified period. It has been further stated therein that grant of pension shall not prejudice the operation of Rule 139 of the Rules where final pension is sanctioned upon the conclusion of the proceeding. In spite of issuance of the aforesaid circulars, the State Government found that the employees are facing difficulties in payment of retirement benefits and as such it issued another instruction, vide Finance Department Resolution No. 3014 dated 31st July, 1980, simplifying the procedure to grant of pension where elaborate procedure has been made for taking steps for payment of pension at the time of superannuation. Clause (7) provides inter alia that in case of government servant against whom, no departmental or judicial proceeding has been initiated, in that case his pension is not to be withheld. However, if the proceeding is pending and there is no chance of conclusion prior to his retirement in that case, earlier circular of 1974 will apply and the employee will be paid provisional pension which shall not be less than 90% of the pension.” 14. In view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ganga Bishun Mahto (supra) it can be safely said that where a case of departmental proceeding or judicial proceeding has remained pending against a Government servant continued under suspension till the date of his retirement he in terms of the aforementioned Government circular of the Finance Department dated 22.8.1974 read with the subsequent Government circular dated 31.10.1974 is only entitled for payment of provisional pension at the rate of 90% till conclusion of the departmental proceeding or judicial proceeding. There is also no dispute that in the case of the petitioner such a judicial proceeding by way of pendency of a criminal case against the petitioner is still continuing and as such, the petitioner will not be entitled for payment of full pension and full gratuity as has been claimed by him in this writ application. 15. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the judgment of the Full Bench of Jharkhand High Court in the case of Dr. Dudh Nath Pandey (supra) should be preferred to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ganga Bishun Mahto (supra) is also not correct in law. 15. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the judgment of the Full Bench of Jharkhand High Court in the case of Dr. Dudh Nath Pandey (supra) should be preferred to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ganga Bishun Mahto (supra) is also not correct in law. Jharkhand High Court having been carved out of Patna High Court in terms of Section-25 of Bihar Re-organisation Act came into being on 15.11.2000 and therefore, all the judgments rendered by Patna High Court prior to 15.11.2000 will form precedence. In fact when Jharkhand High Court in the Full Bench judgment has referred to the case of Bajrang Deo Narain Sinha Vs. State of Bihar & ors., reported in 1999(3) PLJR 949 , for holding that no amount of pension or gratuity can be withheld against a Government servant against whom only a criminal case is pending, this Court will have to necessarily refer to paragraph no.17 of the judgment of division bench of this Court in Ganga Bishum Mahto (supra) wherein it had held as follows:– ““From perusal of the decision in the case of Bajrang Deo Narain Sinha (supra), it appears that the aforesaid instructions of the years 1970, 1974 and 1980 which contained provision for payment of provisional pension during pendency of the proceeding for the purpose of withholding pension etc. were not referred to nor noticed and thus the question as to whether the provisions contained in the aforesaid executive instruction are valid or not, was not at all subject matter of the decision in that case, and as such the said case is not an authority on the point that the aforesaid executive instruction cannot be given effect to being in conflict with the statutory provision contained under rule 43(b) or rule 139 of the Rules.” 16. In view of above it can be safely said that the judgment of this Court in the case of Bajrang Deo Narain Sinha (supra) itself has to be treated as perincuriam in view of the subsequent Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ganga Bishun Mahto (supra). 17. At this stage it has to be also noted here that the decision of Jharkhand High Court in the Full Bench of Dr. Dudh Nath Pandey (supra) is based on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of D.V.Kapoor Vs. 17. At this stage it has to be also noted here that the decision of Jharkhand High Court in the Full Bench of Dr. Dudh Nath Pandey (supra) is based on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of D.V.Kapoor Vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1990 SC 1923 , which was in fact already overruled by the Supreme Court in the subsequent judgment of Jarnail Singh Vs. the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs & ors., reported in AIR 1994 SC 1484 . 18. The reliance placed by the Full Bench of Jharkhand High Court in the case of Dr. Dudh Nath Pandey (supra), in the case of three subsequent judgment of Single Judges of this Court in the case of Kumud Ranjan Tiwari Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2000(1) PLJR 99 , again in the case of Rebati Raman Kanth Vs. Chairman, B.S.E.B., reported in 2000(1) PLJR 192 and in the case of Sur Bihari Mandal Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2000(1) PLJR 870 , having been based either on the judgment of Bajrang Deo Narain Sinha (supra) or on the case of D.V.Kapoor (supra) for the reasons stated above can also not be held to be a good law. 19. As a matter of fact when Jharkhand High Court had not considered the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Bahadur Singh (supra) which was the binding precedent in view of its being delivered in the year 1994 by Patna High Court involving that very same point, there will be no difficulty in holding that the consideration by Jharkhand High Court on the question in issue is incomplete and also permcurium and thus cannot be held to be a binding precedent for this Court. Infact judgments of Patna High Court prior to 15.11.2000 being the appointed day under Bihar Reorganisation Act 2000 are very well covered by the expression "laws enforce immediately before the appointed day" used in Section 84 of Bihar Reorganisation Act 2000, which reads as follows:– "84. Infact judgments of Patna High Court prior to 15.11.2000 being the appointed day under Bihar Reorganisation Act 2000 are very well covered by the expression "laws enforce immediately before the appointed day" used in Section 84 of Bihar Reorganisation Act 2000, which reads as follows:– "84. Territorial extent of law.–The provisions of Part-II of this Act shall not be deemed to have effected any change in the territories to which any law in force immediately before the appointed day extends or applies, and territorial references in any such law to the State of Bihar shall, until otherwise provided by a competent Legislature or other competent authority be construed as meaning the territories within the existing State of Bihar before the appointed day." 20. Dealing with this very aspect with regard to scope of Section 87 Bombay Reorganisation Act which is para materia Section 84 of Bihar Reorganisation Act, a full bench of Gujarat High Court in the case of Ananda Municipality Vs. Union of India and others reported in AIR 1960 Gujarat 40 had held that the decision of the High Court of Bombay given prior to the appointed day viz, 1.5.1960 are binding precedents paragraph no. 8, 10, 11 being relevant are quoted hereinbelow:– "8. It is next necessary to consider in turn whether decisions of the Bombay High Court are to be regarded as 'law in force' in the territories which constituted the State of Bombay. On this point Mr. Patel had little to say. We on our part find no difficulty in giving a comprehensive connotation to the expression "any law in force immediately before the appointed day." The words should not in our judgment, receive any technical meaning but should be understood in a sence which give them a fair measure of amplitude. The crucial words so read must lead to the conclusion that decisions of the High Court of Bombay given before the appointed day are binding on this Court. It may be that same of those decisions may later on be overruled by that High Court. In any such case it would be open to this Court to decide and state for itself the law on the subject. No such position has arisen in the case before us and we need not linger longer on that aspect of the matter. In any such case it would be open to this Court to decide and state for itself the law on the subject. No such position has arisen in the case before us and we need not linger longer on that aspect of the matter. One way of dealing with any such situation would be for a Full Bench of this High Court to consider the question and decide the matter for itself. Nor need we discuss the importance of judicial precedents and their place in the corpus juris. In any case we are of the opinion that judicial precedents are within the extensive ambit of S.87 of the Act. 10. It is lastly argued by the learned Advocate General that decisions of the Bombay High Court prior to the appointed date are binding on this Court because the systems of law in the new States of Maharashtra and Gujarat are derived from the parent State of Bombay of which each formed a part. That decisions of the predecessor Court or the parent Court in any such situation should be accepted with all the respect due to them is not in doubt or dispute. The question is whether the decisions of that Court are binding as precedent. We should have pursued the matter but since we have already reached our conclusion on a reading of the Sections of the Reorganisation Act and particularly that of S. 87, we need not burden this judgment with any further discussion of the same. (11) For reasons already given it is the opinion of this Court that decisions of the High Court of Bombay given prior to the appointed day are binding on this High Court." 21. The same question as with regard to payment of full pension and gratuity against a Government servant who was under suspension till the date of his retirement on the ground of criminal proceeding infact has also been answered by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 7.8.2003 in L.P.A.No. 446/2003 in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Awadh Behari Chaudhary, wherein the Division Bench while reversing the view of the learned Single Judge in the case of Awadh Behari Chaudhary Vs. State of Bihar & ors., reported in 2003(3) PLJR 458 , had held as follows:– ““The Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Awadh Behari Chaudhary, wherein the Division Bench while reversing the view of the learned Single Judge in the case of Awadh Behari Chaudhary Vs. State of Bihar & ors., reported in 2003(3) PLJR 458 , had held as follows:– ““The Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Ganga Vishun Mahto & Ors. reported in 2001(4) PLJR 435 has resolved the issue and has held that under the Bihar Pension Rules no provision has been made to meet the situation when a departmental or criminal proceedings is pending and no final order has been passed with regard to the misconduct. It has been held that under the Bihar Pension Rules, order to withhold pension has been vested in the authority after proving of misconduct in the departmental or criminal proceedings. No provision has been made to meet the situation where a departmental or judicial proceeding is pending and no final order has been passed with regard to the misconduct. To meet such situation, notifications/circulars have been issued providing for payment of provisional pension. It is relevant to quote paragraphs 18 & 22 of the said judgment which run as follows:– “18. In the case of Md. Idris Ansari (supra), the Apex Court has held the two situations where the pension can be withheld or reduced as noticed above. Under the Pension Rules, no provision has been made to meet the situation where a departmental or judicial proceeding is pending and no final order has been passed with regard to misconduct. A pension is to be payable when the service of a government servant is thoroughly satisfactory. Where a proceeding is pending against a government servant, in that case it will be difficult for the sanctioning authority to come to the conclusion that the service of a government servant is thoroughly satisfactory during the period. As there was no provision in the rule to meet the aforesaid situation, the government has issued the aforesaid circulars/instructions containing provisions for payment of provisional pension to the government servants during the pendency of the proceedings so that they may not suffer because of the pendency of the proceedings.” “22. In the present case, as stated above, the pension rules are silent with regard to payment or retrial dues to the employees on superannuation against whom the proceeding is pending and it has not come to final conclusion. In the present case, as stated above, the pension rules are silent with regard to payment or retrial dues to the employees on superannuation against whom the proceeding is pending and it has not come to final conclusion. To meet that situation, instructions have been issued that provisional pension has to be paid in such a situation. After the proceeding is concluded, a final decision with regard to final pension is to be taken in terms of the finding arrived at by the disciplinary authority. It was also provided interalia that even if the pension is reduced, or fixed at a level lower than the provisional pension, no recovery would be made from the concerned employee. Thus, the aforesaid provisions are for benefit of the employees and are supplemental to the rules and they are not in conflict or inconsistent with the rules. In case of pendency of the proceeding after superannuation, the concerned authority cannot take a final decision under Rule 139 regarding the satisfactory service and in such situation there would be delay in payment of retrial dues to the superannuated employee. To meet the said situation and to mitigate the hardships to the retired employees, the said provision has been made. Accordingly, the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the case of Satyendra Narain Sinha @ Dr. Satyendra Narain Sinha (supra) on which he has relied upon in allowing the writ application is not correct. The same view has been taken by the earlier Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Bahadur Sinha Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. ( 1994 (2) PLJR 724 ). It is an admitted position that a vigilance case is pending in the Court against the respondent. In that view of the matter, the Board was justified in sanctioning the provisional pension during the pendency of the criminal proceedings in the Court.” 22. Thus in view of the three authoritative division bench pronouncement of this Court in the case of Ram Bahadur Singh (supra), Ganga Bishun Mahto (supra) and Awadh Behari Chaudhary (supra) there will be no difficulty for me in holding that the petitioner will not be entitled for payment of full pension and gratuity till conclusion of the pending criminal case against him. 23. 23. As a matter of fact the petitioner is also bound by his own inter-party order dated 11.5.2009 in C.W.J.C.No. 5835/2009 which was filed by him for payment of his full salary for the period 31.5.2002 to 31.3.2008. This Court while discussing the case of the petitioner in the light of his being under suspension on account of being accused in R.C.Case No. 48/1996 had held as follows:– “The petitioner was placed under suspension by an order dated 31st of May, 2002 as contained in Annexure 1 to this writ application such order of suspension in fact was passed on account of the petitioner being made an accused in a criminal case being RC 48(A)/96. The State Government had already granted sanction for prosecution against the petitioner vide letter no. 2844 of 22.8.2001 and the trial of that criminal case in which the Government had already granted sanction for prosecution is still pending. If that be so, merely because the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation that will not make him entitled for payment of salary for the period of suspension till the petitioner is acquitted and exonerated from the charges framed against him in the pending criminal trial. The payment of salary/ remaining amount to which the petitioner would be entitled, is squarely dependent on the outcome of the criminal case. If the petitioner is held to be guilty and punished, the Government will have a right not only to withhold the amount which was paid to him but also to reduce/ withdraw the pension to zero, if there be the charges of such serious nature, depending on the amount of defalcation/ misappropriation. At this stage, the respondent authorities of the Government therefore cannot be directed to make payment of the balance amount beyond subsistence allowance already aid to the petitioner. There is no dispute that the petitioner has been paid his subsistence allowance at the rate of 75% on the date of his retirement i.e. 1.4.2008 as is clearly admitted by him in paragraph 5 of the writ application. Even after retirement, the petitioner is entitled to get 90% by way of provisional pension sans gratuity and other retirement benefits.” (underlining for emphasis) 24. Even after retirement, the petitioner is entitled to get 90% by way of provisional pension sans gratuity and other retirement benefits.” (underlining for emphasis) 24. The aforesaid inter-party order especially its underlined portion will directly come in the way of the petitioner in claiming the relief prayed in this writ application and in fact when the petitioner has cleverly suppressed this inter-party order and has not even mentioned about it in this writ application, he also becomes guilty of not approaching this Court with clean hands. The writ proceedings being a discretionary remedy if the petitioner has approached this Court by suppressing a relevant fact that alone may disentitle him of the relief prayed by him. True it is that those observations were made while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for payment of full salary but then this Court was conscious of the law laid down even with regard to payment of retirement benefit of a retired Government servant facing criminal prosecution which in view of the Government circulars dated 22.8.1974, 31.10.1974 and 31.07.1980 as explained in the case of Ganga Bishun Mahto (supra) has to remain confined to payment of provisional pension of 90% and nothing more. 25. An exactly similar case in fact has also been decided by this Court in the case of Shashi Kumar Sinha Vs. the State of Bihar & ors., wherein by a judgment dated 13.8.2008 in C.W.J.C.No. 4866/2002 it has been held as follows:– “Thus, it has to be held that the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ganga Bishun Mahto (supra) is still a good law and applying the ratio thereof there is no escape from the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled for payment of full pension and full gratuity till the pendency of the criminal case against him.” 26. In fact in the case of Shashi Kumar Sinha (supra) this Court having considered the aspect as with regard to entitlement of payment of provident fund, leave encashment and group insurance in the light of the law laid down in the case of Lakshmi Shankar Prasad Vs. State & ors., reported in 1999(3) PLJR 654 , had held as follows:– “I find that the State Government can withhold part of the pension till the final decision taken in the Criminal proceeding as charge-sheet was submitted in the criminal case while the petitioner was in service. State & ors., reported in 1999(3) PLJR 654 , had held as follows:– “I find that the State Government can withhold part of the pension till the final decision taken in the Criminal proceeding as charge-sheet was submitted in the criminal case while the petitioner was in service. However, in such case the State Government is liable to pay the rest of the pension amount, after withholdment part of the pension, in terms of the Government Circular, subject to the final decision in criminal proceeding.” and thereafter also had directed that the amount of provident fund, leave encashment and group insurance had to be paid to a retired Government servant facing criminal prosecution irrespective of withholding of 10% pension and full gratuity till final decision in the criminal case. 27. As noted above, the respondents themselves had paid the petitioner full amount of provident fund and leave encashment and therefore, in view of the discussions made above, he is not entitled to get payment of balance 10% of the pension and full amount of gratuity till conclusion of the criminal case. It is, however, held that a decision on payment of balance 10% pension and full amount of gratuity to the petitioner would abide by the result of the criminal case being R.C.Case No. 48A/1996 pending before the Special Court, C.B.I. 28. Subject to the aforesaid observations, this application is accordingly, dismissed.