ORDER : Pramath Patnaik, J. Heard Mr. Ashim Kumar Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Suraj Prakash, learned J.C. to S.C. (Mines), appearing for the respondent-State. 2. The instant writ application has been filed for quashing the impugned order, passed by the Respondent No. 2 in Appeal No. 08 of 2013, as contained in Memo. No. 130, dated 04.06.2014 (Annexure-3) and for direction upon the respondents for payment of pension, differential pensionary benefits, interest on G.P.F., Leave Salary and Gratuity already paid, medical allowance, benefits of 06th Pay Revision with interest within a specified period. 3. Sans details, the facts, as disclosed in the writ application is that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Overseer in Sericulture (Industry Department) in the year 1966 and during tenure of his service, the petitioner was granted the benefits of 01st and 02nd time-bound promotion. During course of his service, no departmental or criminal proceeding was ever initiated against the petitioner and on 31.01.1998, the petitioner had retired from the post of Overseer from Tasar Sub Station, Tilasut on attaining the age of superannuation. After lapse of more than 5 years, the petitioner was paid the amount of G.P.F. without any interest and in the year 2006, the petitioner has been paid 90 per cent of provisional pension without any interest but the rest amount of the pension and the amount of Leave. Salary and Gratuity has been withheld and necessary guideline was sought for by the Marketing Officer from the Respondent No. 3. The petitioner submitted a representation before the Respondent No. 2 but the said representation did not evoke any response from the respondents. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred W.P. (S) No. 3241 of 2010 for payment of the retiral benefits etc. with interest and the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 17.04.2013, directing the respondent No. 2 to decide the claim of the petitioner to be ventilated through his representation within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. In deference to the aforesaid direction of the Court, the petitioner submitted a representation along with a copy of the order dated 17.04.2013, passed in W.P. (S) No. 3241 of 2010. Thereafter, due to non-compliance of the order, the petitioner filed a contempt case being Contempt Case (C) No. 1751 of 2013 and the respondent no. In deference to the aforesaid direction of the Court, the petitioner submitted a representation along with a copy of the order dated 17.04.2013, passed in W.P. (S) No. 3241 of 2010. Thereafter, due to non-compliance of the order, the petitioner filed a contempt case being Contempt Case (C) No. 1751 of 2013 and the respondent no. 2 filed his show cause enclosing the copy of the order dated 04.06.2013, which is impugned in this writ application. 4. Mr. Ashim Kumar Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner, during course of hearing, has submitted that the impugned order is vitiated on account of non-consideration of law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court and also the Full Bench Judgment passed by this Court. During course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Dr. Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2007 (4) JCR 1 (Jhr) (FB), wherein, the Full Bench of this Court has been pleased to, inter alia, hold under Rule 43 (a) and 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, there is no power for the Government to withhold gratuity and pension during the pendency of the departmental proceeding or criminal proceeding. Learned counsel for the petitioner further refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Jetendra Kumar Srivastava reported in (2013 (4) JCR 229 (SC). 5. Mr. Suraj Prakash, learned J.C. to S.C. (Mines), appearing for the respondent-State reiterated the submissions made in the counter affidavit. During course of hearing, learned counsel for the Respondent-State has submitted that after superannuation from services, the petitioner fraudulently took an amount of Rs. 42,04,775/- and misappropriated the same and the said fact could only be known when the utilisation Certificate was not submitted by the Centre and accordingly, F.I.R. was lodged by the Tribal Development Commissioner, Jharkhand against the petitioner and the same was registered as Kotwali P.S. Case No. 231 of 2002 under Sections 170, 420, 427, 465 and 171 of the IPC. The said case is still pending before the court of competent jurisdiction. The said case is still pending before the court of competent jurisdiction. It has further been submitted that the department vide Memo dated 03.06.2004 has withheld the pension, gratuity and leave encashment of the petitioner till the finality of the criminal case under Rule 43 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules read with Finance Department Circular dated 22.08.1974 and the Circular dated 31.10.1974 as well as Rule 227 (II) of the Jharkhand Service Code. Learned counsel for the Respondent-State has submitted that according to the Bihar/Jharkhand Pension Rule, 1943, future good conduct is an implied condition of every grant of pension and the Government reserve themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, if the pensioner is convicted in serious crime or be guilty of grave misconduct. Learned counsel further submits that the department shall release any amount to the petitioner on the outcome of the criminal case after adjusting the money fraudulently and illegally withdrawn by him, in terms with the judicial outcome of the criminal case. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties at length and having bestowed an anxious consideration to the documents and records, I am of the considered view that the impugned order, passed by the respondent no. 2 vide Annexure-3 is not legally sustainable in view of the aforesaid decisions rendered in the case of Dr. Dudh Nath Pandey as well as in the case of State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Jetendra Kumar Srivastava (supra). The Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the judgment in the case of State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Jetendra Kumar Srivastava reported in (2013 (4) JCR 229 (SC) has been pleased to hold as under : - "13. In State of West Bengal v. Haresh C. Banerjee and Ors., (2006) 7 SCC 651 , this Court recognised that even when, after the repeal of Article 19 (1) (f) and Article 31(1) of the Constitution vide Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978 w.e.f. 20th June, 1979, the right to property was no longer remained a fundamental right, it was still a constitutional right, as provided in Article 300- A of the Constitution. Right to receive pension was treated as right to property. Right to receive pension was treated as right to property. Otherwise, challenge in that case was to the vires of Rule 10 (1) of the West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971 which conferred the right upon the Governor to withhold or withdraw a pension or any part thereof under certain circumstances and the said challenge was repelled by this Court. Fact remains that there is an imprimature to the legal principle that the right to receive pension is recognised as a right in "property". 14. Article 300-A of the Constitution of India reads as under : "300-A. Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law.-No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law." Once we proceed on that premise, the answer to the question posed by us in the beginning of this judgment becomes too obvious. A person cannot b deprived of this pension without the authority of law, which is the constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 300A of the Constitution. It follows that attempt of the appellant to take away a part of pension or gratuity or even leave encashment without any statutory provision and under the umbrage of administrative instruction cannot be countenanced." 7. Viewed thus, the impugned order dated 04.06.2014 (Annexure-3) passed in Appeal No. 08 of 2013 by the Respondent No. 2, is not legally sustainable, is hereby quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to release the admissible post retirement benefits along with the statutory interest, within a period of 16 weeks from the date of communication of the order. 8. The instant writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Petition disposed of.