ORDER The present petition has been filed with the following prayers: (i) For quashing of order of punishment as contained in memo no. 54 dated 03.01.2012 whereby and whereunder the Respondent No.3 has directed for recovery of Rs. 1,30,856/- from the pension/gratuity of the Petitioner; as being illegal, unconstitutional, arbitrary, malafide, cryptic, unreasoned and has been passed without initiating any proceedings and against the principles of natural justice and service jurisprudence. (ii) For a direction upon the concerned Respondents to refund/repay to the Petitioner the already deducted amount of Rs. 10,000/- in the month of January 2012 and Rs. 10,000/- in the month of February 2012. (iii) For a direction upon the concerned Respondents to make payment of final pension (in the revised pay scale) as well as gratuity along with statutory interest in view of the order and direction dated 22.04.2008 passed in Cont. Case (Civil) No. 546 of 2007. (iv) For payment of adequate cost and compensation to be paid to the Petitioner by the Respondents in the facts and circumstances of this case. (v) For any other reliefs to which the Petitioner is legally entitled to in law and equity. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was posted as Assistant Store Keeper at P.T.P.S., Patratu and he was served a notice of superannuation dated 29.01.2005 and accordingly, he superannuated from service with effect from 30.06.2005. The petitioner was paid 90% of his pension however, as the remaining retiral benefits were not paid, the petitioner moved this Court in W.P.(S) No. 6748 of 2005 which was disposed of by order dated 29.03.2006 with a direction to the respondents to release the admitted retiral dues of the petitioner, legally payable to him, together with interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order. Since the order dated 29.03.2006 was not complied by the respondents, the petitioner preferred Cont. Case (Civil) No. 546 of 2007 which was disposed of by order dated 22.04.2008 with a direction to the respondents to make payment of final pension and gratuity with statutory interest, within a period of 2 weeks. 3. By order dated 03.01.2012 an order for recovery of Rs. 1,30,856/- from the pension/gratuity of the petitioner, has been made and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 4. 3. By order dated 03.01.2012 an order for recovery of Rs. 1,30,856/- from the pension/gratuity of the petitioner, has been made and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the specific direction of this Court has not been complied with by the respondents. In the earlier proceeding the respondents never raised the issue of any misconduct committed by the petitioner and the reply of the petitioner to the show-cause notice dated 24.11.2007 was accepted by the respondents, as it would appear from the plea raised by the respondents in the proceeding of Cont. Case (Civil) No. 546 of 2007 where, the only plea taken by the respondents was that, since the petitioner had not vacated the official quarter, the retiral benefits to the petitioner were not released and, therefore, the order of recovery dated 03.01.2012 is illegal and liable to be quashed by this Court. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents justifying the order dated 03.01.2012, has contended that, since shortage in the store and irregularities in the work were detected when the petitioner was posted at P.T.P.S. Patratu and a show-cause was issued to the petitioner on 24.11.2007, and as the reply of the petitioner was not found satisfactory, an order of recovery of Rs. 1,30,856/- has been passed against the petitioner. 7. A perusal of the documents on record would clearly indicate that this Court vide order dated 29.03.2006 and 22.04.2008 had specifically directed the respondents for making payment of the retiral dues to the petitioner. It also appears that in the earlier proceeding before this Court the respondents never raised the issue that, the reply of the petitioner to the show-cause notice dated 24.11.2007 has not been found satisfactory and therefore, an order of recovery would be passed against the petitioner. 8. In the proceeding of the Cont. Case (Civil) No. 546 of 2007, a counter-affidavit was filed by the respondents stating as under, 4. That it is relevant to mentioned here that the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court vide order dated 29.3.06 in writ application WP(S) no. 8. In the proceeding of the Cont. Case (Civil) No. 546 of 2007, a counter-affidavit was filed by the respondents stating as under, 4. That it is relevant to mentioned here that the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court vide order dated 29.3.06 in writ application WP(S) no. 6748/05, directed the opposite party to release all the admitted retiral dues of the petitioner legally payable to the petitioner together with interest within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order. 5. That the petitioner was paid all his retiral dues, except the final pension and gratuity. 6. That it is pertinent to mention here that the final pension of the petitioner has been sanctioned to the tune of Rs. 5510/- only per month by the Joint Secretary-III, J.S.E.B Ranchi. The payment should commence from 1.7.2005. 7. That a sum of Rs. 3,19,110/- only has been sanctioned as DGR gratuity to the petitioner by the Joint Secretary, J.S.E.B Ranchi. It is pertinent to mention here that Director of Accounts has been directed the DDA (Sectt.) J.S.E.B Ranchi to arrange for payment of Rs. a sum of Rs. 1,78,254/- only after deduction of Rs. 10,000/- only on account of excess payment, and Rs. 1,30,856/- only has been kept in abeyance till Board's quarter vacation report from A.O., PTPS Patratu. 8. That the opposite parties have not filed any other show cause earlier in this case before this Hon'ble Court. 9. The order in the Cont. Case (Civil) No. 546 of 2007 was passed on 22.04.2008 whereas, the show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 24.11.2007 and therefore, I find merit in the submission raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since no order was passed after the petitioner submitted his reply to the show-cause notice dated 24.11.2007, the petitioner thought that, the show-cause notice dated 24.11.2007 was dropped. In the affidavit filed in the proceeding of the Cont. Case, there is not even a whisper about the show-cause notice dated 24.11.2007. It is also a matter of record and it would appear from a bare reading of order dated 03.01.2012 that no proceeding was initiated against the petitioner for recovery of Rs. 1,30,856/- and more than 4 years after the issuance of the show-cause notice dated 24.11.2007, an order of recovery of Rs. It is also a matter of record and it would appear from a bare reading of order dated 03.01.2012 that no proceeding was initiated against the petitioner for recovery of Rs. 1,30,856/- and more than 4 years after the issuance of the show-cause notice dated 24.11.2007, an order of recovery of Rs. 1,30,856/- has been passed by impugned order dated 03.01.2012 which cannot be permitted in law. The right of an ex-employee to his retiral benefits is akin to right to property and a Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Deokinandan Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and Others”, reported in (1971) 2 SCC 330 , finally set at rest the ongoing debate regarding the nature of pension by holding that the right of a person to receive pension is property under Article 31 (1) and by a mere executive order the State has no power to withhold the same. The decision by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Deokinandan Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and Others” (supra) finally settled the notion of pension being a bounty, a gratuitous payment depending upon the sweet will or grace of the employer not claimable as a right and, therefore, no right to pension can be enforced through Court, as wrong. 10. It is also a settled law that the order of the Court must be complied and the authorities can not modify or change the order passed by the Courts. In the present case also it was open to the respondents to challenge the orders passed by this Court in earlier proceedings. It is a matter of record that the orders passed by this Court in the earlier proceeding have become final and therefore, those orders are binding on the respondents. 11. In “S. Nagaraj Vs. State of Karnataka”, reported in (1993) Supp (4) SCC 595, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under, 12. “..........Law on the binding effect of an order passed by a court of law is well settled. 11. In “S. Nagaraj Vs. State of Karnataka”, reported in (1993) Supp (4) SCC 595, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under, 12. “..........Law on the binding effect of an order passed by a court of law is well settled. Nor there can be any conflict of opinion that if an order had been passed by a court which had jurisdiction to pass it then the error or mistake in the order can be got corrected by a higher court or by an application for clarification, modification or recall of the order and not by ignoring the order by any authority actively or passively or disobeying it expressly or impliedly. Even if the order has been improperly obtained the authorities cannot assume on themselves the role of substituting it or clarifying and modifying it as they consider proper. In Halsbury’s Laws of England (Fourth Edn., Vol. 9, p. 35, para 55) the law on orders improperly obtained is stated thus: “The opinion has been expressed that the fact that an order ought not to have been made is not a sufficient excuse for disobeying it, that disobedience to it constitutes a contempt, and that the party aggrieved should apply to the court for relief from compliance with the order.” Any order passed by a court of law, more so by the higher courts and especially this Court whose decisions are declarations of law are not only entitled to respect but are binding and have to be enforced and obeyed strictly. No court much less an authority howsoever high can ignore it. Any doubt or ambiguity can be removed by the court which passed the order and not by an authority according to its own understanding.” 12. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to refund the amount already deducted from the retiral benefits of the petitioner and to comply with the orders dated 29.03.2006 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 6748 of 2005 and orders dated 22.04.2008 passed by this Court in Cont. Case (Civil) No. 546 of 2007 within a period of 4 weeks, from the date of communication of this order. 13. The impugned order dated 03.01.2012 is quashed. 14. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.