JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has sought for direction upon the respondents to fix the monthly pension on the basis of last pay drawn and for payment of gratuity and benefit of two Assured Career Progression though granted with effect from the year 1999. The petitioner has further prayed for direction to the respondents to pay all the post retiral benefits with compound interest at the prevailing bank rate. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts is that the petitioner joined as the Typist Clerk in the year 1973. After completion of 32 years of services he took voluntary retirement under voluntary retirement scheme of the Government of Jharkhand while posted in the office of Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Department, Saraikella-Kharsawan. After voluntary retirement the information was submitted to the department with regard to the fact that there is no liability of the petitioner nor any departmental proceeding is pending but for the callous and indifferent attitude of the respondents the petitioner has been paid only provisional pension in spite of several representations. That apart the petitioner has not been paid gratuity, benefits of two ACP which were granted to him in the year 1999. Being aggrieved by the lackadaisical attitude of the respondents, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the doors of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievance. 3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted with vehemence that there has been no allegation of any fraud or misrepresentation against the petitioner but vide order as appears in Annexure-4 and 4/A of the rejoinder, the pay scale of the petitioner has been downgraded and the order of recovery has been passed in the year 2009 much after the voluntary retirement of the petitioner. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has also further referred to the Annexure-5 to the supplementary affidavit dated 09.03.2010, wherein the letter dated 16.02.2010 of the Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Department, Saraikella-Kharsawan has been annexed as Annexure-5, whereby there has been direction for stoppage of pension of the petitioner. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has also further referred to the Annexure-5 to the supplementary affidavit dated 09.03.2010, wherein the letter dated 16.02.2010 of the Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Department, Saraikella-Kharsawan has been annexed as Annexure-5, whereby there has been direction for stoppage of pension of the petitioner. Learned senior counsel further submits that Rule 136 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules envisages with the amount of pension that may be granted is determined by length of service and Rule 151 envisages that the term “Emoluments” as used in respect of the ordinary pensions means the emoluments which the Government servant was receiving immediately before his retirement. Moreover, the rectification has been made by the respondent authorities much after the retirement which cannot be legally tenable. Learned senior counsel has referred to the judgment of this Court reported in 2015 (4) JCR 691 (Baijnath Ram vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.) in support of his contentions. 4. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In the counter affidavit, it has been submitted that the petitioner applied for voluntary retirement under Voluntary Retirement Scheme and the same was allowed vide office order dated 02.06.2006 effecting his retirement from 31.08.2005. The petitioner has been paid arrears of provisional pension. Further it has been submitted that petitioner has been granted admissible ACP and also the petitioner has been paid earned leave and group insurance and moreover the petitioner has received his full provisional pension vide office order dated 07.07.2009. It has further been submitted that the proposal for final fixation of pension and gratuity of the petitioner has been submitted to the Accountant General, Ranchi vide letter dated 24.11.2009 for approval and as soon as the final approval of gratuity payment order is received from the Accountant General, Jharkhand, the same shall be immediately paid to the petitioner. 5. A supplementary counter affidavit dated 26.03.2010 has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it has been stated that the entire legally payable admissible dues has been duly paid to the petitioner and no dues of pensionary benefit is pending in the Division and the entire claim has been redressed. 6. 5. A supplementary counter affidavit dated 26.03.2010 has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it has been stated that the entire legally payable admissible dues has been duly paid to the petitioner and no dues of pensionary benefit is pending in the Division and the entire claim has been redressed. 6. A supplementary counter affidavit dated 11.04.2018 has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it has been submitted that the office order in Annexure-4 and 4/A of the rejoinder have been issued after rectification in connection with the office order issued previously made in Annexure-3 of the said rejoinder in which 1st and 2nd ACP has been issued conditionally subject to confirmation from the Finance Department/competent authority. It has further been submitted that on the request of the petitioner Accountant General, Jharkhand has sent PPO of the petitioner to Accountant General, Bihar, Patna vide letter dated 17.03.2010 to enable the petitioner to withdraw his pension from Sachiwalaya Treasury, Patna. 7. Learned counsel for the State has reiterated the submissions made in the counter affidavit and she has further assiduously submitted that the respondents have already redressed the grievance of the petitioner as disclosed from the counter affidavit and the supplementary counter-affidavit. 8. Learned counsel for the Accountant General while defending the action of the respondents has referred Clause-3 of Annexure-3 of the rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioner to the counter affidavit dated 09.02.2010, wherein the grant of ACP is allowable subject to rider in Clause-III. Therefore, the action of the respondents cannot be construed to be illegal, if any bona fide mistake is rectified subsequently. 9. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the rivalized submissions and on perusal of the records this Court is inclined to accede to the prayer of the petitioner so far as grant of full pension and other post retiral benefits are concerned due to the following facts and reasons: (I) Indisputably, the petitioner retired under voluntary retirement scheme vide order dated 02.06.2006 with effect from 31.08.2005 and on the date of retirement there is no dues pending against him nor there was any departmental proceeding. The respondent authorities vide Annexure-4 and 4/A to the to the rejoinder and Annexure-5 to the supplementary affidavit have passed the order for downgrading of the pay of the petitioner and for recovery perhaps due to rectification, but, admittedly the same has been done much after retirement without issuance of any notice. It is trite law that one cannot be visited with any civil consequences after retirement without observing the principles of natural justice or without any proceeding being initiated. (II) In the case in hand, the decision of the respondents in Annexure-4 and 4/A of the rejoinder and Annexure-5 to the supplementary affidavit, do not appear to be legally sustainable in view of the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2015 (1) JCR 369 (SC) : (2015) 4 SCC 334 (State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Ors.). 10. In that view of the matter in the absence of any finding by the competent authority or observance of principles of natural justice, the action of the respondents in issuing Annexure-4 and 4/A of the rejoinder and Annexure-5 to the supplementary affidavit cannot be held to be lawful. 11. In view of the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, the respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders for fixing the pension of the petitioner, and all the admissible post retiral benefits which have not been paid to the petitioner be paid to the petitioner as early as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/communication of the order. 12. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands allowed. Petition allowed.