ORDER : R. Devdas J. 1. The petitioner was appointed on 11.04.1977, by the State in the cadre of Karnataka Administrative Services. After earning promotion, the petitioner is said to have reached the post of Karnataka Administrative Services (Senior Scale) (Selection Grade) and (Super Time Scale). On 15.07.2008, the petitioner was appointed as Member of the Karnataka Public Service Commission under Article 216(1) of Constitution of India. The petitioner retired from service on 16.07.2014, as Member of the Karnataka Public Service Commission. Immediately thereafter, a ‘No Due Certificate’ stating that no dues are outstanding from the petitioner was issued by the respondent No.3Karnataka Public Service Commission. The unutilized Earned Leave that was standing to the credit of petitioner was also sanctioned by respondent No.3. Thereafter, respondent No.4Principal Accountant General (A&E) requested the petitioner to furnish the particular about the pendency of Departmental/judicial proceedings against the petitioner so as to enable respondent No.4 to release commuted value of the pension amount. On 15.07.2014, the petitioner contends that he has made a representation and duly submitted the pension papers in triplicate. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that even after expiry of more than 1 year 4 months, pension was not settled. Being aggrieved the petitioner is before this court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay commutation value of pension along with 18% interest on the delayed payment of arrears of pensionary benefits of Rs.6,96,322/-. 2. Sri. M.S. Bhagwat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner places reliance on two judgments. It is submitted that in the case of State of Jharkhand and others V/s Jitendra Kumar Srivatsa and another reported in 2013 (12) SCC 210 , the Apex Court has held that the right of the petitioner to receive the pension is ‘property’ under Article 31(1) and by mere executive order, the State had no power to withhold the same. In the case of Mohan Shankar Magajikandi V/s The Managing Director, Karnataka State Warehousing Limited and another in W.P.No.80549/2013, which was disposed of on 28.03.2018, this court while referring to Rule 214 and 215-A of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1958, has held that where the Government dues or amount of any pecuniary loss is assessed it is recoverable under the said Rule, from the pensionary benefits or gratuity or any amounts payable to the employee. It was also held that it was mandatory on the part of the employer to hold the departmental enquiry before recovering or withholding any amount legally payable to the employee. If such enquiry has not been initiated within four years from the date of alleged misconduct or not initiated after four years with the sanction of the Government, then such proceedings cannot be relied upon to withhold the pensionary benefits. 3. Taking support from the above said decisions, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case there is no departmental enquiry held or pending against the petitioner. Since the petitioner retired from the services on 16.07.2014, it is quite evident that as required under Rule 214 of the Rules, action is not initiated against the petitioner within the stipulated period. Therefore, it is contended that the inaction on the part of the respondents in granting value of pension is in violation of the provisions governing the disbursal of pension. It is therefore, submitted that the prayer made by the petitioner may be granted. 4. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents would submit that the decision of this court on the same question of law has been taken up before the Division Bench. The Writ petitions, WP.No.3290/2015 and W.P.No.48371/2014, which were allowed by this court are pending consideration before the Division Bench in Writ Appeal Nos. 3350/2016 and 3272/2016. Therefore, it was submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General that the decision of the Division Bench may be awaited before passing any order in these writ petitions. 5. On hearing both the learned counsel and perusing the writ papers, this court is of the considered opinion that the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Jarkhand (supra) covers the matter sufficiently. In that case Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules were considered and it was held that a reading of the Rule makes it abundantly clear that even after the conclusion of the departmental enquiry, it is permissible for the Government to withhold pension, etc., only when a finding is recorded either in departmental enquiry or judicial proceedings that the employee had committed grave misconduct in discharge of his duty while in his office. There is no provision in the Rules for withholding of the pension/gratuity when such departmental proceedings or judicial proceedings are still pending. There is no provision in the Rules for withholding of the pension/gratuity when such departmental proceedings or judicial proceedings are still pending. 6. Their lordship’s have considered the relevant provision of the Rules along with Article 31(1), Article 19(1)(f), Article 19(5) and Article 300(A) of the Constitution of India. Consequently, it was held that pension is not a bounty payable on the sweet will and pleasure of the Government and that, on the other hand, the right to pension is a valuable right vesting in a Government servant. 7. At this juncture, learned Additional Advocate General submits that Rule 214 may not be pari materia with Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules which fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex court. He fairly submits that in substance they may be akin to each other, but there are certain other provisions which are required to be read together. Therefore, Additional Advocate General repeats his request to defer the decision in this matter till the Division Bench takes a decision which is pending consideration. 8. On bestowing full consideration on the submissions of learned counsels on both the sides, this Court is of the opinion that a decision in this matter is required to be taken on the strength of the facts of the case read with decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The respondent-State may take up the matter before the Division Bench, if it feels aggrieved. 9. In the light of the above, the petition requires to be allowed and the prayer made by the petitioner is required to be granted. Accordingly, the petition is allowed, while directing the respondents to pay the commutation value of pension along with interest payable in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Since the main petition itself is disposed of, I.A.No.1/2018 does not survive for consideration.