JUDGMENT : 1. The matter has been heard through video conferencing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. They have no complaint about any audio and visual quality. 2. All these appeals since involve similar issues, as such, have been directed to be listed together for their analogous hearing. In pursuance thereto, all these matters have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order/judgment. 3. These appeal are under Clause 10 of the Letter Patent directed against the order/judgment dated 25.08.2018 passed in W.P.(S) No.192 of 2016, W.P.(S) No.138 of 2016 and W.P.(S) No.1283 of 2016 wherein charge memos dated 21.12.2015 [L.P.A. No.705 of 2018 and L.P.A. No.706 of 2018] and 15.02.2016 [L.P.A. No.710 of 2018] have been issued in pursuance to a departmental proceeding for the allegation that the writ petitioners have failed to prove the genuineness of the caste certificates produced by them for securing appointment to the post of typist and by the aforesaid act they have failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion and failed to serve the corporation honestly and faithfully. 4. The learned Single Judge disposed of all the three writ petitions (W.P.(S) No.192 of 2016, W.P.(S) No.138 of 2016 and W.P.(S) No.1283 of 2016) whereby and whereunder the writ Court came to a finding that there cannot be any interference in the charge memos, however, with a view to give a chance to the writ petitioners to produce the caste certificates, it was ordered that final order in the departmental proceeding pursuant to the charge memos dated 21.12.2015 [L.P.A. No.705 of 2018 and L.P.A. No.706 of 2018] and 15.02.2016 [L.P.A. No.710 of 2018] shall not be passed till 29.10.2018, awaiting production of the caste certificates by the writ petitioners, however, if the writ petitioners failed to produce the fresh caste certificates by that time for a just excuse, the departmental authority, after granting further opportunity to the writ petitioners, shall be at liberty to proceed in the matter, in accordance with law. So far as the disbursement of the pension and other post retiral benefit are concerned, it was directed to make payment of pension and other post retiral benefit to the writ petitioners. 5. So far as the disbursement of the pension and other post retiral benefit are concerned, it was directed to make payment of pension and other post retiral benefit to the writ petitioners. 5. The instant appeals have been preferred by the Life Insurance Corporation, mainly on the ground that as per the applicable pension rule of the Corporation, the full and final pension and gratuity cannot be disbursed, however, in pursuance to the applicable pension rule, the provisional pension is being paid. 6. So far as it relates to payment of full and final pension and other post retiral benefit are concerned, the same are not sustainable in the eye of law being contrary to the applicable pension rule, i.e., Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 and as per the applicable pension rule formulated by the Corporation, the full and final pension as also the gratuity cannot be paid during pendency of proceeding either departmental or judicial, hence, that part of the order needs to be quashed and set aside. 7. We, before proceeding to appreciate the argument advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellants as indicated hereinabove, deem it fit and proper to refer certain facts of the case. The writ petitioners, who claim to be under the reserved category have made applications for consideration of their appointment in Life Insurance Corporation of India by showing themselves the member of the reserved category in support of which caste certificates were enclosed with the application form. The writ petitioners were declared successful in the process of selection and accordingly, they were appointed in service, subsequently, their services were confirmed on 11.11.1981 w.e.f. 01.10.1981 [L.P.A. No.705 of 2018], 12.04.1982 w.e.f. 26.03.1982 [L.P.A. No.706 of 2018] and 12.04.1982 w.e.f. 26.03.1982 [L.P.A. No.710 of 2018] respectively. The writ petitioners superannuated from service w.e.f. 31.12.2015. Criminal case were instituted against the writ petitioners on the ground that there were some discrepancy, irregularity and illegality in their caste certificates for commission of offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The trial in the criminal cases proceeded and the writ petitioners were acquitted from the criminal liability by the competent court of criminal jurisdiction. The trial in the criminal cases proceeded and the writ petitioners were acquitted from the criminal liability by the competent court of criminal jurisdiction. The appellant-Corporation issued memorandum of charge to the writ petitioners of L.P.A No.705 of 2018 and 706 of 2018 just 10 days before their superannuation, i.e., on 21.12.2015 and to the writ petitioner of L.P.A. No.710 of 2018 on 15.02.2016 alleging therein that the caste certificates submitted were sent to the issuing authority for verification, however, the issuing authority informed vide letter dated 04.12.2014 that the relevant register of 1981 is not available. As the dispute regarding the caste certificates remained alive, they have been asked to obtain a fresh caste certificate but the genuineness of the caste/caste certificates could not have been confirmed either by the authority who purportedly issued the certificates or by the writ petitioners by submitting any corroborating evidence which could have been with them only by virtue of their claim belonging to the reserved category. The writ petitioners challenged the memorandum of charge by invoking the jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but the learned Single Judge by the impugned orders, refused to interfere with the memorandum of charge and while disposing of the writ petitions certain liberties were granted to produce fresh caste certificates before the authority before 29.10.2018, failing which, the departmental proceeding will take its course, in accordance with law. So far as the relief sought for about disbursement of post retiral dues is concerned, it was ordered to release the pension as also the post retiral benefit. 8. The issue has been raised by Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation that the direction passed by the learned Single Judge for making payment of pension and other post retiral benefit to the writ petitioners is absolutely improper and contrary to the applicable pension rule because according to the pension rule, the delinquent employee against whom the departmental proceeding is pending, even after retirement will continue and in that circumstances, only provisional pension would be paid. So far as the question of making payment of gratuity is concerned, gratuity cannot be paid in pursuance to the LIC Employee Pension Rule, 1995 which contains a provision of withholding gratuity in terms of Rule 46(2) of the said Rule, hence, the direction passed by the learned Single Judge is without taking into consideration the provision of Rule 46(2) of the said Act, therefore, that part of the order is not sustainable in the eye of law. 9. It has further been submitted that the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Deokinandan Prasad vs. State of Bihar and Ors., (1971) 2 SCC 330 and in State of Jharkhand and Ors. vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and Anr., (2013) 12 SCC 210 will not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand because before the Hon’ble Apex Court either in Deokinandan Prasad vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (supra) or in State of Jharkhand and Ors. vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and Anr. (supra) the question of the provision of Rule 43(b) was the subject matter which provides withholding of pension or part of it in case of finding recorded by the competent authority/Court either in the departmental or judicial proceeding and in case of its pendency, the pension cannot be withheld but herein the case of Rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rule will not be applicable rather the provision of LIC (Employee) Pension Rule, 1995 will be applicable which contains a provision under Rule 46(2) as per which in case of pendency of departmental proceeding only the provisional pension will be payable. Further, gratuity cannot be paid in case of pendency of the departmental proceeding. 10. Mr. Rohitashya Roy, learned counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners has submitted that as per the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 it has been provided under Section 4 thereof, that the gratuity shall be payable to an employee on the termination of his employment after he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years, -- (a) on his superannuation, or (b) on his retirement or resignation, or (c) on his death or disablement due to accident or disease. According to Mr. According to Mr. Roy, Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 being a Central Legislation, the LIC (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995 will not have overriding effect upon the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, therefore, the contention as has been agitated by the learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation is not fit to be accepted. He further submits that even accepting the LIC (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995 for the sake of argument, the appellant-Corporation has even not paid the amount pertaining to leave encashment while according to him, the LIC (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995 is having no provision to withhold leave encashment except only in case of financial loss, but here, there is no allegation of financial loss as would be evident from memorandum of charge and hence, the leave encashment in no circumstances, be withheld. 11. This Court, after having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the material available on record and also the finding recorded in the impugned orders so far as it relates to the direction regarding payment of pension and other post retiral benefit, deem it fit and proper to first have a discussion about the legal position with respect to the entitlement of full and final pension, gratuity and leave encashment. 12. Since the learned Single Judge had relied upon two judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Deokinandan Prasad vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (supra) and State of Jharkhand and Ors. vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and Anr. (supra), therefore, we thought it proper to first deal with the facts of those two cases. 12. Since the learned Single Judge had relied upon two judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Deokinandan Prasad vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (supra) and State of Jharkhand and Ors. vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and Anr. (supra), therefore, we thought it proper to first deal with the facts of those two cases. We, after going through the facts of these two cases, have found that the same pertains to the applicability of the provision of Rule 43(b) of the Bihar/Jharkhand Pension Rules which contains a provision that Rule 43(b) confers power upon the State to withhold pension or part of it in case of finding of misconduct recorded either in the departmental or judicial proceeding but the matter fell for consideration as to whether the State Government has got power to withhold pension even in case of pendency of the departmental or judicial proceeding and in that circumstances it has been clarified by taking into consideration the provision of Rule 43(b) of the Bihar/Jharkhand Pension Rules wherein it has explicitly been provided that the State can exercise the aforesaid power as conferred under Rule 43(b) only in case of finding of misconduct either in the departmental or judicial proceeding, meaning thereby, in case of pendency of either departmental or judicial proceeding, the said power cannot be exercised. In that view of the matter, it has been laid down that till the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceeding, full and final pension shall be paid to the pensioner, therefore, these two judgments have been rendered in the context of the provision of Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules. For ready reference, Rule 43(b) is being reproduced hereinbelow: “43(b) The State Government further reserve to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for specified period, and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government if the pensioner is found in departmental or judicial proceeding to have been guilty to grave misconduct, or to have caused pecuniary loss to Government misconduct, or to have caused pecuniary loss to Government by misconduct or negligence, during his service including service rendered on re-employment after retirement”. 13. 13. It is settled position of law that the applicability of the judgment is to be tested on the basis of the factual aspect involved in the case as has been settled by Hon’ble Apex Court in Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., (2014) 5 SCC 75 , paragraph-47 of the said judgment is being reproduced hereinbelow: “47. It is a settled legal proposition that the ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case and the case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it. “The court should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed.”” 14. We have considered the relevant provision of LIC (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995 which has been framed by the Central Government in exercise of the power vested under Section 48 of the LIC Act, which contains a provision under Rule 46(2) conferring power to withhold gratuity in case an employee against whom a departmental proceeding is or being contemplated, the gratuity withheld can be released only after the proceeding is over and after recovering from the gratuity the financial loss, if any, caused to the Corporation. So far as the disbursement of pensionary benefit is concerned, it has been decided by virtue of Circular as contained in Reference ER/Disc/ZD/Cir. No.155/95 dated 11.11.1995 containing an instruction regarding payment of provisional pension, gratuity and commutation of pension, in case of continuation of disciplinary proceedings after retirement, in that circumstances the provisional pension has been directed to be disbursed in favour of such retired employee. For ready reference Rules 42, 43, 46(1)(2) are being reproduced hereinbelow: “42. Pension subject to future good conduct – Future good conduct shall be an implied condition of every grant of pension and its continuance under these rules. 43. For ready reference Rules 42, 43, 46(1)(2) are being reproduced hereinbelow: “42. Pension subject to future good conduct – Future good conduct shall be an implied condition of every grant of pension and its continuance under these rules. 43. Withholding or withdrawal of Pension – The Competent Authority may, by order in writing, withhold or withdraw a pension or a part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period, if the pensioner is convicted of a serious crime or is found guilty of grave misconduct: Provided that where a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn, the amount of such pension shall not be reduced below the minimum pension per mensem payable under these rules. 46. Provisional pension – (1) An employee who has retired on attaining the age of superannuation or otherwise and against whom any departmental or judicial proceedings are instituted or where departmental proceedings are continued, a provisional pension, equal to the maximum pension which would have been admissible to him, would be allowed subject to adjustment against final retirement benefits sanctioned to him, upon conclusion of the proceedings but no recovery shall be made where the pension finally sanctioned is less than the provisional pension or the pension is reduced or withheld etc, either permanently or for a specified period. (2) In such cases the gratuity shall not be paid to such an employee until the conclusion of the proceedings against him. The gratuity shall be paid to him on conclusion of the proceedings subject to the decision of the proceedings. Any recoveries to be made from an employee shall be adjusted against the amount of gratuity payable. (2) In such cases the gratuity shall not be paid to such an employee until the conclusion of the proceedings against him. The gratuity shall be paid to him on conclusion of the proceedings subject to the decision of the proceedings. Any recoveries to be made from an employee shall be adjusted against the amount of gratuity payable. Explanation - In this chapter (a) the expression ‘serious crime’ includes a crime involving an offence under the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923); (b) the expression “grave misconduct” includes the communication or disclosure of any secret official code or password or any sketch, plan, model, article, note, document or information, such as is mentioned in section 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923) (which was obtained while holding an office in the Corporation) so as to prejudicially affect the interests of the general public or the security of the State.” It is evident from the provision as contained under Rule 42 that the pension is to be paid to the retired persons from the Corporation subject to future good conduct, which is pari materia to the provision of Rule 42 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules. Further Rule 43 provides power to withhold or withdrawal of pension if the pensioner is convicted of a serious crime or is found guilty of grave misconduct, which is pari materia to the provision of Rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules. Further, it is evident from the provision of Rule 46 which provides for making payment of provisional pension to an employee who has retired on attaining the age of superannuation or otherwise and against whom any departmental or judicial proceeding are instituted or where departmental proceeding are continued, a provisional pension equal to the maximum pension which would have been admissible to him, would be allowed subject to adjustment against final retirement benefit sanctioned to him upon conclusion of the proceeding but no recovery shall be made where the pension finally sanctioned is less than the provisional pension or the pension is reduced or withheld etc, either permanently of for a specified period. 15. It has been informed by the learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation that the writ petitioners are being paid provisional pension in pursuance to the provision of Rule 46(1) of the LIC (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995. 15. It has been informed by the learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation that the writ petitioners are being paid provisional pension in pursuance to the provision of Rule 46(1) of the LIC (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 46 provides a provision to deal with the disbursement of gratuity which shall not be paid to such an employee until the conclusion of the proceedings against him. The gratuity shall be paid to him on conclusion of the proceedings subject to the decision of the proceedings. Any recoveries to be made from an employee shall be adjusted against the amount of gratuity payable. In that view of the matter, since there is express provision to deal with the disbursement of full and final pension and gratuity as under the provision of LIC (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995, it will be applicable. 16. It further requires to refer herein that since in the Bihar/Jharkhand Pension Rules, there is no provision to make provisional pension rather as has been decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Deokinandan Prasad vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (supra) and State of Jharkhand and Ors. vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and Anr. (supra) that in case of pendency of the departmental or judicial proceeding, full and final pension is to be paid and under the pension rule, the gratuity includes the pension, therefore, the gratuity will also be covered with the aforesaid judgments, in that view of the matter, judgments rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Deokinandan Prasad vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (supra) and State of Jharkhand and Ors. vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and Anr. (supra), will not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the applicability of LIC (Employees)Pension Rules, 1995 which contains express provision of making payment of provisional pension and further the gratuity cannot be paid in case of pendency of departmental or judicial proceeding as per sub-rule (2) of Rule 46 of the LIC (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995, as such, according to our considered view, the learned Single Judge has not considered the applicability of the LIC (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995 in the context of these two cases but incorrectly relied upon the judgments rendered in Deokinandan Prasad vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (supra) and State of Jharkhand and Ors. vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and Anr. (supra) and State of Jharkhand and Ors. vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and Anr. (supra) by issuing a direction upon the respondents, the appellant-Corporation herein, to make payment of pension and other post retiral benefit, therefore, the said part of the order which contains a direction for making payment of pension and other post retiral benefit is not sustainable in the eye of law, accordingly, quashed and set aside. 17. At this juncture, it has been submitted by Mr. Roy that the writ petitioners have retired in the year 2015 and as such, in pursuance to the provision as contained under Rule 46(1), provisional pension has to be released immediately after their superannuation but the authority in highly arbitrary and illegal manner has disbursed the provisional pension sometime in the year 2020, as such, they may be directed to disburse the arrears of the provisional pension from the date of their superannuation. 18. Upon this, Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation has submitted that the corporation will take decision and if the provisional pension has not been paid immediately after the date of superannuation of the writ petitioners, the arrears of the provisional pension from the date their superannuation shall be paid within a reasonable period. 19. This Court, in view of such submissions and considering the implication of the provision of Rule 46(1) of the LIC (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995, deem it fit and proper to direct the competent authority of the appellant-Corporation to disburse the arrears of provisional pension due immediately after the date of superannuation till the provisional pension has been released, if not already been paid, within a reasonable period preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of copy of the order which shall be presented by the writ petitioners within a period of three weeks from the date of its receipt. 20. 20. So far as the part of the order directing payment of other post retiral benefits is concerned, since the gratuity includes the post retiral benefits, therefore, the learned Single Judge since has directed for making payment of gratuity but the said part of the order is also in the teeth of sub-rule (2) of Rule 46 which provides that in case of pendency of departmental or judicial proceeding the amount of gratuity shall not be released which shall only be released subject to decision of the proceedings and therefore, this Court deem it fit and proper also to modify the order passed by the learned Single Judge so far as it relates to direction pertaining to disbursement of amount of gratuity by modifying the aforesaid order by directing the appellant-Corporation that the amount of gratuity shall be dealt with in pursuance to the provision of sub-rule(2) of Rule 46 of the LIC (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995 at the appropriate stage. 21. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners has submitted that the direction may be passed upon the payment of leave encashment which has not been released as yet. 22. Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation has submitted on the basis of the communication dated 22.12.1997 which has been placed before this Court containing a decision pertaining to unavailed PL which has been decided to be withheld at the discretion of the competent authority. While taking the decision, the competent authority should keep in view the financial loss, if any, suffered by the Corporation, as such, according to him, authority will take decision in pursuance to the policy decision pertaining to disbursement of unavailed PL. 23. Upon this, Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the writ petitioners has submitted that communication dated 22.12.1997 cannot be construed be take a shape of law and the learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation failed to produce any enactment which confers power upon the competent authority to withheld the leave encashment. 24. This Court, on appreciation of the rival submission in this context and after going through the communication dated 22.12.1997 has found therefrom that the same has been written under the signature of Assistant Secretary (IR) addressed to all Sr./Divisional Manager under South Zone which contains a provision pertaining to dealing with the payment of unavailed PL. 24. This Court, on appreciation of the rival submission in this context and after going through the communication dated 22.12.1997 has found therefrom that the same has been written under the signature of Assistant Secretary (IR) addressed to all Sr./Divisional Manager under South Zone which contains a provision pertaining to dealing with the payment of unavailed PL. For ready reference, the same is being reproduced hereinbelow: “In so far as the benefit of encashment of unavailed PL is concerned, the same may be withheld at the discretion of the Competent Authority. While taking the decision, the Competent Authority should keep in view the financial loss, if any, suffered by the Corporation.” The aforesaid policy decision suggests that the encashment of unavailed PL depends upon the discretion of the competent authority. While taking the decision for its disbursement, the consideration of financial loss, if any, is to be taken note of. 25. We, for the purpose of applicability of this policy decision have examined the memorandum of charge wherefrom it is evident that there is no charge pertaining to any financial loss to the Corporation rather the charge pertains to genuineness of caste certificates, therefore, in absence of any intent of financial loss to the Corporation, the said communication will not come in the way of disbursement of leave encashment in favour of the writ petitioners. In that view of the matter, this Court deems it fit and proper that the leave encashment of the writ petitioners cannot be withheld in case of pendency of the departmental proceeding, accordingly, this Court directs the appellant-Corporation to disburse the leave encashment in favour of the writ petitioners within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of copy of the order, which shall be presented by the writ petitioners within three weeks from the date of its receipt. Accordingly, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is modified to the extent as indicated hereinabove. 26. In the result, all the three appeals stand disposed of with the observation and direction as above. 27. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.