JUDGMENT : 1. Prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to the respondents to forebear from withholding fixation and payment of final pension. 2. The petitioner was appointed on 21.11.1975 and he superannuated from service on 30.06.2004. At the time of his retirement he was holding the post of A.D.M. in the office of the Divisional Commissioner, Ranchi. In connection to R.C. No. 63-A of 1996 (Pat) he was placed under suspension on 14.03.2002. During the period of suspension, that is, from 14.03.2002 to 30.06.2004 he was paid subsistence allowance. In the counteraffidavit, the respondents have asserted that provisional pension to the petitioner was sanctioned vide order dated 17.05.2005. Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is being paid provisional pension. 3. Contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that pendency of the criminal case cannot be a ground for finalizing, fixing and paying full pension to the petitioner. The learned counsel in support of the above contention refers to the decision in “State of Jharkhand and others Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and Another” reported in (2013) 12 SCC 210 . 4. The learned State counsel, however, contends that the final calculation of petitioner's pension can be done only after a decision on payment of full salary and allowances is taken by the competent authority for the period between 14.03.2002 to 30.06.2004. 5. Petitioner's representation dated 05.08.2015 reflects that the petitioner was not paid full salary during the period of suspension. Rule 97 of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001 provides that only after the authority competent to order reinstatement of the government servant forms an opinion that the order of suspension was wholly unjustified and the government servant shall be given full pay and allowance which he would have been entitled had he not been suspended, the government employee shall be paid full pay and allowances. It is an admitted position that no order for payment of full salary and allowance to the petitioner for the period between 14.03.2002 to 30.06.2004 has been passed by the competent authority. Obviously, calculation of final pension cannot be done. This is the distinguishing fact in this case which distinguishes the law laid down in Jitendra Kumar Srivastava case. It is an admitted position that no order for payment of full salary and allowance to the petitioner for the period between 14.03.2002 to 30.06.2004 has been passed by the competent authority. Obviously, calculation of final pension cannot be done. This is the distinguishing fact in this case which distinguishes the law laid down in Jitendra Kumar Srivastava case. In fact, present is not a case of withholding or forfeiture of pension or pensionary benefits during the pendency of the criminal case rather, calculation of final pension of the petitioner has not been done because no decision under Rule 97 has been taken by the competent authority, and reason for this is that the petitioner has not moved the competent authority for a decision under Rule 97. 6. Accordingly, relief as prayed for cannot be granted to the petitioner, at this stage. The petitioner, however, is granted liberty to file an application before the competent authority with specific pleadings for payment of full salary and allowances during the period of suspension. 7. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner.