ORDER I.A. No. 4857 of 2013 has been filed to condone the delay of three days in filing the appeal. Considering the duration of delay it is allowed. 2. The present appeal arises from the order dated 3.4.2013 dismissing CWJC No. 1032 of 2010. The learned Single judge held that no direction for payment of remaining 10% pension and 100 % gratuity could be passed as there was a criminal case pending against the appellant since 1999. Directions were issued to conclude the criminal trial within six months i.e. by October, 2013. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that withholding of 10% pension and the entire gratuity without any order of conviction by a competent Court of Law much less any departmental proceeding initiated and a finding of guilt recorded, is completely arbitrary and unjustified in the law. He relies on 2013(3) PLJR 458 (SC) [: 2013 (3) BLJ 4 (SC)] (State of Jharkhand vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava) and submits that he is entitled to full pension and gratuity. 4. Learned Counsel for the Board submits that the allegations are serious. A Vigilance Case was lodged on 20.8.1999 bearing No. 22/99 against the appellant under Section 5(2) read with 5(1)(D) and now Section 13(1)(D) read with 13(1)(E) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for possessing assets disproportionate to income. The check period was from 1974 to 1989. Mere delay in the criminal trial, when he cannot escape responsibility for the same also, cannot be a ground for release of the entire dues as in that event the trial itself may become futile. The trial is on the verge of conclusion. Directions may therefore be given to proceed in accordance with law after the verdict in the vigilance case is delivered. Reliance was placed on (1993) 1 SCC 47 (Jarnail Singh vs. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs). 5. The appellant retired from the services of the Board on 31.12.2006. He came to the Court earlier in CWJC no. 6611 of 2009 aggrieved by denial of full pension and gratuity. It was disposed on 22.5.2009 with directions to consider the representation. The respondents passed an order on 9.11.2009 opining that pendency of the vigilance case did not appear to have been brought to the attention of the Court on account of which the payment could not be released. 6611 of 2009 aggrieved by denial of full pension and gratuity. It was disposed on 22.5.2009 with directions to consider the representation. The respondents passed an order on 9.11.2009 opining that pendency of the vigilance case did not appear to have been brought to the attention of the Court on account of which the payment could not be released. No claim had been made in the writ petition for interest on delayed payments of GPF, payment of interest on leave encashment and the benefit of ACP etc. and therefore it was not required to be considered. 6. Keeping in mind the directions given by the learned Single judge on 3.4.2013 to conclude the vigilance case within a period of six months, and its pendency since 1999, in order to apply our mind judiciously we considered it proper on 24.1.2014 to call for an attested photocopy of the entire order sheet of Vigilance Case No. 22/99 pending before the Special Judge (Vigilance) Patna-II. The order sheet provided to us by the District Judge, Patna has been perused. The order sheet and the manner in which the trial has proceeded deeply saddens us for the manner in which the prosecuting authorities have conducted themselves showing complete disinterest, and if we may say so with respect, a complete lack of desire to prosecute. 7. The vigilance case was lodged on 20.8.1999. Warrants of arrest were issued on 10.9.1999. On 22.12.1999 the appellant moved for anticipatory bail which was rejected on 11.1.2000. He was granted anticipatory bail by the high Court on 25.2.2000 in Cr. Misc. No. 2294 of 2000. He surrendered and furnished bail bonds on 3.4.2000. Chargesheet was filed on 3.2.2003. It surprises us why in such an important matter dealing with corruption in public life the prosecuting authorities took nearly three years to file the Chargesheet. If that were not enough, after cognizance was taken the same day it was adjourned on 64 successive dates at very reasonable interval of a month or less for supply of police papers which was finally supplied on 10.4.2008. We wonder that if Chargesheet had been submitted on 3.2.2003 why the complete lack of sincerity on part of the prosecuting authority in supply of the police papers till five years later. Charges were framed on 6.2.2009 and directions given to produce prosecution witnesses. We wonder that if Chargesheet had been submitted on 3.2.2003 why the complete lack of sincerity on part of the prosecuting authority in supply of the police papers till five years later. Charges were framed on 6.2.2009 and directions given to produce prosecution witnesses. 55 successive dates passed at short intervals of a month or less before the first prosecution witness was produced on 31.10.2012. He was examined, cross-examined and discharged. Thereafter the prosecution witnesses did not appear on regular dates and the matter was adjourned because of their absence. The last prosecution witness with again intervals of absence of prosecution witnesses was examined and closed on 22.4.2013 when the prosecution witnesses were only a few in number. The appellant remained present throughout except on one date i.e. 22.12.2011 when he was cautioned. 8. In the meantime the appellant had also filed Cr. Misc. No. 36473 of 2010 in which an undertaking was given by the Counsel for the Vigilance on solemn affirmation by the Department for promptitude in concluding the trial within six months as noticed in the order dated 16.5.2012. Even after that the prosecution remained completely oblivious to produce prosecution witness and only after 20 dates produced the first prosecution witness on 31.10.2012. 9. In Jarnail Singh (supra) the question for consideration was entirely different. The question involved was if the word ‘pension’ could include gratuity and could also be withheld when an order was passed for withholding pension. It has no application to the facts of the present case. In Jitendra Kumar Srivastava (supra) the facts were somewhat similar. While in services cases were registered against the respondent in 1996. He superannuated in 2002. On account of pendency of the vigilance case likewise 10% pension was withheld and he was not paid leave encashment and gratuity. It was held that pension and gratuity etc. constitute property under Article 300A of the Constitution and in absence of any order in a judicial proceeding or in a departmental proceeding it could not be withheld on basis of any executive circulars. This opinion was based on earlier judicial precedents that they were not bounty but a right to property under Article 300 A. 10. constitute property under Article 300A of the Constitution and in absence of any order in a judicial proceeding or in a departmental proceeding it could not be withheld on basis of any executive circulars. This opinion was based on earlier judicial precedents that they were not bounty but a right to property under Article 300 A. 10. Before we conclude we must take note of the submission on behalf of the respondent that the vigilance case appears to have been kept for pronouncement of final judgment on 16.1.2014 but was adjourned to 27.1.2014 at the request of the appellant desirous to make certain further submissions. In the facts of the case, the complete apathy of the manner in which the prosecution has conducted itself when the answerability of the appellant arises only after closure of the prosecution case on 22.4.2013, we do not think and hold that the appellant certainly cannot be blamed for the delay. Admittedly he has not been convicted in any judicial proceeding and neither are there any departmental proceedings against him. The appellant has rightly relied upon the minutes of a meeting chaired by the Chief Secretary of the State on 21.5.2003 at Item 20, that even if there were departmental proceeding pending against a retired person or Chargesheet had been filed in a criminal prosecution, 100 % pension was to be sanctioned. 11. We expect the respondents to wake up to the situation and take appropriate remedial measures so that cases of such nature are not handled in a slip shod manner as reflected in the present case. 12. Applying the ratio of Jitendra Kumar Srivastava (supra) we hold that the appellant is entitled to release of balance 10 % pension, full gratuity, statutory interest on delayed payment of GPF, interest on leave encashment and is entitled to be considered for grant of ACP. The order to be complied with within a maximum period of one month from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. 13. This shall be without prejudice to the right of the respondents in accordance with law dependant on the outcome of the vigilance trial. 14. The appeal is allowed.