ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Bihar State Electricity Board. 2. By this writ application the petitioner seeks to quash the office order no.253 dated 13.9.2007 (Annexure-3), by which the respondents have withheld the permissible 10% monthly pension of the petitioner and also the entire gratuity amount. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said amounts have been withheld and not paid to the petitioner due to pendency of a criminal case instituted against him in the year 1990 and though the petitioner has superannuated on 31.5.2007 the petitioner’s dues namely; (i) Payment of monthly pension of which 10% had been withheld; (ii) Payment of entire gratuity amount; (iii) Payment of 6th Pay revision with effect from January 2007; and (iv) benefit of leave encashment on revised rate, have all been arbitrarily withheld. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent Bihar State Electricity Board has filed a counter affidavit today stating that the aforementioned payments have been withheld on account of the fact that the criminal case has not reached its logical conclusion and unless and until it so happens no further payment can be released in favour of the petitioner. It is also contended on behalf of the Electricity Board that the petitioner had not been proceeded against departmentally and as of date no proceeding is pending against him. 5. So far as the question of passing Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination at a delayed date is concerned, it is submitted that on account of fixation of pay wrongly made the respondent board has withheld certain payments. However, in the counter affidavit it is not stated as to whether any misrepresentation or fraud has been practiced by the petitioner which led to the said fixation. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn my attention to a judgment of this Court relied by him which has been reported in 2013(4) PLJR 119 (Uday Shankar Jha vs. The Bihar State Electricity Board & ors.) in which this Court has passed an order stating that the gratuity withheld by the Electricity Board due to the pendency of the departmental proceeding or withholding of any gratuity by the Board which has adopted only the Bihar Pension Rules and not the other notification would be contrary to law and not open to the authorities of the Board. Similar situation prevails in the present case. Similar situation prevails in the present case. The respondent Board has withheld the payment of gratuity in excess of its power as the Rule does not envisaged withholding of the same. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred to a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2013 (2) PLJR 866 (The Chairman & M.D. UCI Bank vs. Shambhu Sharan Singh) in which this Court has clearly held that as per Sections 4 and 14 payment of gratuity after retirement cannot be withheld due to pendency of the criminal case. 8. The present writ petitioner has been deprived of his gratuity from the date of his retirement till date without any sanction of law. It is thus evident that the respondents have illegally withheld all such payments which are required to be made by the respondent Board with immediate effect. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order as contained in Annexure-3 is quashed and the respondents are directed to make payment of the gratuity amount as well as 10% pension withheld by them, within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order. 10. So far as leave encashment is concerned, the respondents will also calculate the same and make payment of the amount towards the said head within the aforesaid period, as per the difference so calculated after re-fixation of his emoluments as per 6th pay revision. 11. It is also made clear that the admitted interest on the amount will also be simultaneously calculated and paid to the petitioner. 12. With the aforesaid directions, the writ application is allowed.