ORDER : Heard the parties. 2. Since the issue involved in the aforesaid cases are identical and as such, they are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The petitioners have approached this Court with the following prayers:- “(I) For quashing and to set aside the impugned order contained in letter No. PAD/Pension/292/2017-18 dated 08.08.2017 issued by respondents, whereby the pension of the petitioner has been withdrawn and for quashing of the order of the respondent No.1 for withholding Commutation and regular pension in place of regular pension (Annexure-5) [in W.P.(S) No.1804 of 2018], impugned order contained in Letter No.PAD/Pension/385/2017-18 dated 08.08.2017 issued by the respondent No.1, whereby the pension of the petitioner has been withdrawn [in W.P.(S) No.1810 of 2018], impugned order contained in Letter No. PAD/Pension/293/2017-18 dated 08.08.2017 issued by the respondents, whereby the pension of the petitioner has been withdrawn {in W.P.(S) No.1766 of 2018}, impugned letter No. PAD/Pension/295/2017-18 dated 08.08.2017 issued by the respondents, whereby the pension of the petitioner has been withdrawn [in W.P.(S) No.1816 of 2018] (II) For direction upon the respective respondents to start making payment of current pension of the petitioners along with arrears of pension and further to make payment of cost of litigation along with appropriate compensation for mental agony. (III) For direction upon the respondents to make the payment of Leave Encashment along with interest 12 % @ per annum on the entire amount due to be paid to the petitioner [in W.P.(S) No.1766 of 2018]. (IV) For direction upon the respondents to make payment of interest @ 12 % on the said arrears of pension from the due date till the date of payment and make payment of commutation of pension [in W.P.(S) No.1804 of 2018]. 4. Sans details, the facts as averred in the writ petitions, in a nutshell is that the petitioners had been appointed to different posts in the Indian Overseas Bank and have rendered their services sincerely, diligently and to the full satisfaction of the respondents without there being any complaint whatsoever, save and except the present one narrated hereinafter. Some of the petitioners have been given regular promotion during their service period. However, in the course of service, the petitioners have been issued a chargesheet on 17.7.2000 for certain acts of omission and commission committed by them while working at Dhanbad Branch of Indian Overseas Bank. Some of the petitioners have been given regular promotion during their service period. However, in the course of service, the petitioners have been issued a chargesheet on 17.7.2000 for certain acts of omission and commission committed by them while working at Dhanbad Branch of Indian Overseas Bank. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority ordered enquiry in the said chargesheet and accordingly a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioners and simultaneously the matter was referred to the CBI and consequently a criminal case was instituted being Case No. R.C.-21(A)/1994-D against the petitioners and the same has also been proceeded. It is further case of the petitioners that during the pendency of departmental proceedings, some of the petitioners have superannuated and on conclusion of departmental proceedings, a punishment order dated 7.5.2003 had been issued to the petitioners in W.P.(S) No.1804/2018 and 1810/2018; whereby and whereunder the penalty of reduction in basic pay of five stages in the time scale of pay for a period of one year with further direction that the petitioners will not earn increment of pay during the period of such reduction and on the expiry of such period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing future increment of pay in terms of Regulation 4(f) of the Indian Overseas Bank Officers Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulation, 1976 as amended from time to time, has been inflicted upon the petitioners and vide punishment order dated 26.06.2003 against the petitioner in W.P.(S) No.1816 of 2018, whereby bringing down the basic pay by two stages in the scale of pay in terms of Clause 6 (C) of Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.04.2002 between the bank and workman has been inflicted and vide punishment order dated 19.10.2013 withholding of 1/3rd of eligible pension permanently in terms of Clause 43 r/w 48 of the Indian Overseas Bank (Employees ) Pension Regulation, 1995 has been inflicted against the petitioner in W.P.(S) No.1766 of 2018. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of punishment, the petitioners {save and except petitioner in W.P.(S) No.1816/2018} preferred inter-departmental appeal before the appellate authority, who, upon careful consideration of the averments made in the memo of appeal, vide order dated 13.11.2003 has been pleased to modify the penalty awarded by the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 7.5.2003; whereby and wherein the appellate authority has been pleased to modify the original punishment order inflicted in case of petitioner in W.P.(S) No.1804/2018 and 1810/2018 which was however, challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(S) No.1804 of 2018 by way of preferring review application, but the same was rejected vide order dated 07.07.2004. On the other hand, the appeal of the petitioner in W.P.(S) No.1766 of 2018 was dismissed and by upholding the order of punishment, which was challenged before the learned Industrial Tribunal by filing Industrial Dispute Case No.5/15 and vide its order dated 17.02.2016, reduced pension of the petitioner has been revised from 1/3rd to 1/4th and the pension so revised is being paid to the petitioner. Since then, they are getting the salary/pension in view of final decisions taken by the respondents after the outcome of appeal/review of the respective punishment orders. In W.P.(S) No.1804 of 2018, after superannuation of the petitioner, some retiral benefit had been withheld. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner submitted an application dated 05.03.2014 under RTI Act, 2005, in response thereto, the respondents vide letter dated 07.04.2014 informed that as a CBI case was pending against the petitioner, the petitioner had been granted Provisional Pension withholding commutation and other terminal benefits in terms of Regulation 46 and 47 of IOB Employees’ Pension Regulations, 1995, which is also under challenge. 5. It is further the case of the petitioners that the criminal case pending before the Court of the Special Judge, CBI-cum-Additional District Judge III, Dhanbad by the efflux of time has finally been concluded and the petitioners have been convicted in the aforesaid criminal case vide order dated 07.02.2017. 5. It is further the case of the petitioners that the criminal case pending before the Court of the Special Judge, CBI-cum-Additional District Judge III, Dhanbad by the efflux of time has finally been concluded and the petitioners have been convicted in the aforesaid criminal case vide order dated 07.02.2017. Pursuant thereto, the respondent authorities has been pleased to withdraw the pension of the petitioners in its entirety vide different letters dated 8.8.2017 stipulating interalia that since the learned CBI Court, Dhanbad has convicted the petitioners vide order dated 24.05.2017 ( the date of Court order mentioned in Bank’s letter is 24.05.2017 whereas the actual date is 07.02.2017, in terms of Regulation 43 of the Pension Regulation, the pension of the petitioner is withdrawn with immediate effect as all the petitioners have been retired from the services. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners represented before the respondents stating therein that the order passed by the learned CBI Court, Dhanbad has been assailed by the petitioner before the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court by filing different Cr. Appeal (S.J.) Nos.371/2017, 382/2017 and 397/2017 by the respective petitioner and which are admitted for further hearing and petitioners have been enlarged on bail, but no heed was paid till date. Left with no other efficacious, alternative and speedy remedy, the petitioners have been constrained to approach this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of their grievances. 6. Learned counsels for the petitioners jointly argues that withholding of pension of the petitioners with immediate effect in terms of Regulation 43 of the Pension Regulation has been passed by the respondent authorities in a most mechanical manner. The respondent authorities while exercising power conferred under Clause 43 of the aforesaid Pension Regulation has failed to appreciate that though the petitioners have been convicted for serious crime by the learned CBI Court but the petitioners have preferred a statutory appeal, which is pending before this Hon’ble High Court for adjudication and therefore, invoking power conferred under the aforesaid clauses during the pendency of the appeal is illegal and arbitrary and not in accordance with law. The pension is the only means of livelihood of the petitioners and withholding of the same amounts to depriving the petitioners from their life and livelihood without following the due procedure established under the law, as such the same is a direct violation of the fundamental right of the petitioner of right to life and right to livelihood as contained in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is further reiterated that in the eventuality of being succeeding in the statutory appeal pending before this Hon’ble Court at a belated stage, withholding of pension at this stage would cause irreparable loss and the same cannot be compensated by any means as the pension is the only means of livelihood of the petitioners and therefore, the respondents may be directed to immediately and forthwith pay the pension of the petitioners and further be please to make payment of arrears of pension to the petitioners, which is withheld from the year, 2017. Learned counsels further argue that pendency of criminal case before superior Court, cannot be a legal impediment in the matter of grant of pensionary benefit. Learned counsels for the petitioners strenuously urge that once an order entails with civil consequences, principle of natural justice mandates that an opportunity of being heard ought to have been given to the petitioner which admittedly has never been given to the petitioners and on this score alone the impugned orders are bad in the eyes of law and liable to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsels further argue that in case of one Mr. William Minj, who was co-accused in the said criminal case and has also been convicted by the same impugned order, but his pensionary benefit has not been withheld only on account of the fact that he is a provident fund optee and as such, he has been left scot free, whereas, petitioners have been penalized as they have opted for pension scheme and as such, the said classification is discriminatory and unreasonable as both of them were facing same and similar charge in the criminal case and have been convicted by the same impugned order and as such, impugned orders are liable to be quashed and set aside. 7. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. 7. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Gyanendra Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that petitioners have been convicted for serious crime by the learned CBI Court, however, same has been challenged before the Hon’ble High Court, wherein the provisional bail have been granted, subject to deposit of the fine amount. The petitioners have not made any communication with the respondents before issuance of impugned order as the impugned order has been issued on 08.08.2017, whereas, the petitioners have sent letter on 22.08.2017 with self attested web copy of the order passed in Cr. Appeal (SJ) filed by them before the Hon’ble High Court. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that as per Regulation, 42 to 44 of Indian Overseas Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulation, 1995, rightly the impugned order dated 08.08.2017 has been passed for withholding the pension of the petitioners and as such, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders. 8. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties and on perusal of the records, it appears that admittedly, the respondents have passed the impugned orders without affording any opportunity of hearing and without even issuance of any show-cause. Merely because the petitioners had opted Pension Scheme and other similarly situated persons had opted CPF, no double standard ought to have been adopted by the respondents, which amounts to discrimination. Parity has to be maintained in cases of awarding punishment. Pursuant to order of conviction, withholding of pension of the petitioners amounts to double jeopardy as the petitioners have already been punished in Departmental Proceedings and as such, on the same charges/ same cause of action, the petitioners cannot be punished again by withholding of pension on the ground of conviction. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners find support from the judgment rendered by this Hon’ble Court in the case of Doodhnath Pandey Vrs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2007 (4) JCR 1, wherein the Full Bench of this Hon’ble Court has been pleased to hold that pendency of criminal case could not be a bar in making payment of pensionary benefits. The aforesaid proposition of law has further been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jitendra Kumar Srivastava Vrs. reported in 2007 (4) JCR 1, wherein the Full Bench of this Hon’ble Court has been pleased to hold that pendency of criminal case could not be a bar in making payment of pensionary benefits. The aforesaid proposition of law has further been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jitendra Kumar Srivastava Vrs. State of Jharkhand, reported in 2013 (12) SCC 210 , whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has affirmed the legal position to the effect that pendency of criminal case or departmental proceeding could not be a bar in the matter of payment of post retiral benefits and as such, the impugned orders are passed without any application of mind and in mechanical way. The petitioners are retired persons, depriving their legal rights on the ground of conviction, is not tenable in the eyes of law. In case of Akhilesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in (2008) 2 JCR 79 (SC), the Hon’ble ApexCourt has held as under:- “11. ………….. It is true that delinquent officers similarly situated should be dealt with similarly and, thus if the charges against the employees are identical, it is desirable that they be dealt with similarly.” 9. The Hon’ble Patna High Court in case of State of Bihar Vs. Yogendra Singh, reported in 2009 (1) PLJR 187 has held as under:- “………….. if for almost identical charges, the Junior Engineer has been exonerated by his disciplinary authority, there was no justification in holding the charges proved against the present respondent and punishing him with stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect, censure for the year 1999-2000 and that the delinquent would be entitled to subsistence allowance only during the period of suspension. Consideration of the matter by the Single Judge cannot be said to suffer from any legal infirmity justifying interference by us.” 10. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncement, the impugned orders are not tenable in the eyes of law and as such, impugned orders i.e. letter No. PAD/Pension/292/2017-18 dated 08.08.2017 in W.P.(S) No.1804 of 2018, Letter No.PAD/Pension/385/2017-18 dated 08.08.2017 in W.P.(S) No.1810 of 2018, Letter No. PAD/Pension/293/2017-18 dated 08.08.2017 in 1766 of 2018 and letter No. PAD/Pension/295/2017-18 dated 08.08.2017 in W.P.(S) No.1816 of 2018are hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent-authorities to take a fresh decision in case of the petitioners, in light of aforesaid judgments and also in view of the fact that other similarly situated persons have allowed to withdraw pension. 11. Let a fresh decision be taken within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, communicating the same to the petitioner. 12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, these writ petitions stand disposed of.